Theological     Seminary, 

PRINCETON,     N.    J. 

Ca.sr        O^^ — ^ — "      Civston 

SheJf       G^«7< 


c  lOn — 


Booh- 


A     DONATION 


k^'  -■  li 


iifctibcb    //> 


f^irytt^  ^a  /^^^ 


uln^^  MZ7tc-^^ctJ^:r)J  r/u 


QUESTIONS 


AWAKENED   BY  THE  BIBLE. 


I. 

ARE     SOULS     IMMORTAL? 

II. 
WAS    CHRIST    IN    ADAM? 

III. 
IS    GOD    A    TRINITY? 


REV.    JOHN'  MILLER, 

Princeton,  N.  J. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

J.    B.    LIPPINCOTT    &    CO., 

1877. 


Copyright. 

JOHN    MILLER, 

1877. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 

ARE   SOULS  IMMORTAL? 

II. 

WAS   CHRIST  IN   ADAM? 

III. 
IS   GOD   A   TRINITY? 


I. 
ARE   SOULS    IMMORTAL? 


PREFACE. 


The  sole  object  of  this  book  is  to  show  that  the 
immortaHty  of  the  soul  is  not  taught  in  God's  holy 
word.  The  impulse  to  conceive  of  such  a  book  was 
not  given  by  science,  but  was  bred  of  texts  of  Script- 
ure. The  author  was  not  studying  Materialism  ; 
and  indeed  denies  that  philosophy  can  determine 
whether  the  soul  is  or  is  not  immortal.  That  will 
appear.  The  surprise  that  such  changed  views 
awakened,  came  upon  him,  not  in  the  Porch,  but  in 
the  Temple,  and  in  his  wrestlings  against  them  he 
had  to  contend,  not  with  science,  but  with  the  word 
of  God.  To  illustrate  his  helplessness  in  these 
respects  take  this  sentence,  "  So  man  lieth  down, 
and  riseth  not :  till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they 
shall  not  awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep  " 
(Job  xiv :  12):  or  this,  '*  In  that  very  day  his 
thoughts  perish  "  (Ps.  cxlvi :  5) ;  or  Paul's  very  un- 
observed passage, — '^  These  all,  having  been  attested 
by  faith,  received  not  the  promise,  God,  out  of  refer- 


6  Are   Souls   Immortal f 

ence  to  us,  havinpj  looked  to  the  future  for  the  some- 
thing better,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be 
made  perfect  "  (Heb.  xi  :  39,  40). 

The  manner  of  a  book,  however,  needs  a  preface, 
as  well  as  the  matter.  The  naked  denial  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  without  the  gentleness  of  a 
careful  definition,  would  needlessly  shock  people : 
and  to  mark  upon  our  gate,  '*  The  Soul  not  Immor- 
tal," when  we  wish  to  admit  the  guest,  and  lay 
before  his  candor  something  entirely  different  from 
what  he  would  at  first  sight  suppose,  would  be  any- 
thing but  skilful. 

There  are  two  questions  :  Will  the  soul  be  im- 
mortal ?  and,  Is  the  soul  immortal  now?  To  say 
"  The  Soul  not  Immortal,"  would  needlessly  jar  upon 
the  former.  The  immortality  of  the  soul  is  one  of 
our  sweetest  confidences.  All  the  ecstasies  of  faith 
are  wrapped  up  in  the  very  expression.  It  has 
grown  hallowed.  And  though  "  The  Soul  not  Im- 
mortal "  is  really  the  correct  title  for  the  belief  that 
it  dies  between  death  and  judgment,  yet  we  must 
really  not  turn  faith  too  suddenly  even  out  of  a 
heathen  temple.  Our  doctrine  is,  that  man  dies  at 
death  :  that  the  body  is  mortal,  and  that  the  soul  is 
mortal :  that  the  body  will  live  again,  and  that  the 
soul  will  live  again  :  that  the  body  will  live  forever, 
and  that  the  soul  will  live  forever  :  and   therefore, 


Preface.  7 

keeping  them  together,  that  the  whole  man  will  die, 
sleep,  rise,  live  again,  and  be  immortal.  This  doc- 
trine is  taught  in  Scripture,  and  does  not  touch  a 
fibre  of  the  tree  of  grace.  It  touches  fatally  the 
errors  of  the  Papacy.  It  is  this  literalness  of  the 
soul's  not  being  immortal,  to  which  we  ask  the  at- 
tention of  the  church  ;  and  we  beg  her  to  perceive, 
that  this  is  all  that  we  attempt  to  teach,  and  that  if 
she  considers  this  a  wreck,  we  have  fallen  on  it  over 
our  charts  and  compass,  and  not  by  peering  to  the 
land  for  the  decoy  lights  of  a  false  Materialism. 

John  Miller. 
Princeton,  Aug.  6th,  1876. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 

PACK 

THE  SOUL  NOT  IMMORTAL 13 

CHAPTER  L 
The  Doctrine  Stated 13 

CHAPTER   II. 
The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  the  Views  of  Christendom.     17 

CHAPTER   III. 

The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  Certain  Corrupt  Forms  of 

Faith 21 

CHAPTER   IV. 

The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  Certain  Prevalent  Super- 
stitions       23 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Doctrine,  if  True,  Important 24 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Doctrine,  if  Untrue,.  Unimportant 26 


lO  Contents. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

PAGE 

Order  of  Discussion 27 


II. 

THE  IMMORTALITY   OF   THE   SOUL  NOT  IN  REA- 
SON       29 

CHAPTER   I. 
Can  Reason  be  Unmistakable  ? 29 

CHAPTER  IL 
Reasons  in  Favor  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  ....     34 

CHAPTER   III. 
Reasons  against  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul 47 

CHAPTER   IV. 
A  Providence  in  this  Discussion 57 


III. 

THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  NOT  IN  SCRIP- 
TURE       64 

CHAPTER   I. 
Can  Scripture  be  Unmistakable  ? 64 


Contents.  1 1 


CHAPTER   II. 

PAGE 

The  Fourteenth  Chapter  of  Job 69 


CHAPTER  III. 
The  Fifteenth  Chapter  of  First  Corinthians 73 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Two  Adverse  Passages 78 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Spirits  in  Prison 93 

CHAPTER  VI. 
What  might  we  Expect  of  Scripture  ? 98 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Whole  Man,  Body 105 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Whole  Man  Dead 109 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Whole  Man  Buried 113 

CHAPTER  X. 
The  Whole  Man  Raised  from  the  Dead 128 


12  Contents. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

PAGE 

The  Whole  of  Man,  Soul 136 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Spirit 158 


IV. 


THE   IMMORTALITY    OF  THE   SOUL  A  RELIC  OF 

PAGANISM 167 


I. 

THE   SOUL   NOT   IMMORTAL. 


CHAPTER    I. 


The  Doctrine  Stated, 


Hp:  who  wishes  to  propound  a  doctrine,  and  has  in 
view  any  conscientious  object,  will  discover  it  to  be 
discreet  not  to  define  as  far  as  he  is  able,  but  only 
so  far  as  his  conscientious  object  obliges  him  to  do. 

It  is  like  ship-building.  The  packet  has  to  meet 
the  billows.  The  wily  draughtsman  will  curve  its 
lines  as  crank  as  he  dare.  If  he  satisfies  the  great 
need  of  carrying  the  freight,  he  will  make  the  resist- 
ance of  the  sea  the  slightest  possible. 

We  have  our  own  theory  of  the  soul,  and  that 
theory  will  incontinently  appear  as  we  complete  our 
book.  But  that  theory  is  not  necessary  to  our  pur- 
pose. We  think  it  is  hinted  at  in  the  word  of  God  ; 
but  it  is  not  vital.  And  as  we  wish  the  greatest 
number  of  adherents,  it  is  obviously  discreet  to  de- 
fine as  little  as  will  barely  meet  our  end. 

We  may  mention  for  example  three  hypotheses : 


14  The   Soul  not   Immortal. 

First,  the  hypothesis  of  those  who  think  that 
thought  is  an  attribute  of  matter.  They  think  that 
Abraham  is  nothing  but  carbon  and  phosphorus  and 
other  elements,  and  that  Abraham's  faith  will  phys- 
ically follow  when  these  are  felicitously  combined. 
We  scout  anything  so  rude  as  this;  but  still,  let  us 
not  exclude  its  advocates.  We  find  in  the  word  of 
God  that  the  soul  dies.  These  men  think  so.  Let 
us  not  haggle  at  the  specific  form,  since  qua  essentia 
we  agree, — that  Abraham  passes  from  life  when  his 
body  is  struck  with  dissolution. 

Again,  there  is  another  school.  They  would 
treat  matter  like  the  orders  of  Masonry.  They 
would  speak  of  different  endowments.  First  there 
are  the  brute  molecules.  Then  a  different  endow- 
ment makes  them  grow,  and  we  have  the  bean 
stalk  ;  or  a  different  endowment  makes  them  feel, 
and  we  have  the  calf  or  the  elephant.  Incident  to 
this  feeling  is  thought,  and  it  is  the  direct  gift  of 
the  Most  Hic^h.  Then  we  have  another  endow- 
ment  that  is  necessary  to  man.  The  question 
whether  these  endowments  are  simply  matter  would 
be  answered  by  asking.  What  do  you  call  matter? 
It  would  soon  be  found  that  these  men  think  matter 
itself  an  endowment  ;  that  is,  that  it  moves  and 
acts  ;  that  it  is  forceful,  and  is  all  in  motion  ;  and 
therefore  that  matter  is  not  life,  because  life  is  an 
additional  gift  of  motion  ;  and  that  life  is  not 
thought,  because  thought  is  another  dose,  so  to 
speak,  from  the  same  Efficiency  ;  and  that,  therefore, 
thought  is  not  life,  yet  added,  and  inseparable  from 
it ;  and  life  is  not  matter — the  doctrine  of  this  school 


The   Doctrine   Stated.  1 5 

being,  that  the  first  dust  of  earth  is  a  divine  efficien- 
cy, and  then  Hfe  another,  and  then  thought  another, 
and  then  conscience  more  ;  all  bred  of  God,  and  yet 
dependant  back  the  one  upon  the  other;  dust  hav- 
ing this  supremacy,  that  it  appears  to  abide,  the  con- 
science  and  the  thought  and  the  life  following  the 
fortunes  of  the  dust,  so  that  when  that  is  disorgan- 
ized, its  endowments  fail,  and  the  bean-growth  and 
the  calf-life  and  Abraham's  faith  perish  and  become 
extinct  together.  This  is  another  theory.  We 
might  subdivide  with  lesser  shades,  but  we  will  deal 
generically. 

We  will  give  now  another.  It  is  that  of  the 
Soul-Sleepers  whom  Calvin  attacked.  They  had  not 
reached  modern  notions  of  the  restlessness  of  mat- 
ter. Boscovitch  had  not  hved.  They  were  ready 
to  admit  substantial  spirit.  They  therefore  thought 
matter  one  thing,  and  soul  another — I  mean  in  esse. 
And  reasoning  just  as  we  do,  I  mean  from  Scripture, 
they  argued  out  a  common  histor}^ ;  that  is,  admitting 
that  the  soul  had  essence,  and  the  body  also,  and 
that  they  existed  permanently,  they  affirmed  a  par- 
ticipated lot,  and  that  the  soul  sank  into  unconscious- 
ness the  moment  it  was  driven  forth  from  the  refuge 
of  the  body. 

Now  we  will  enforce  neither  of  these  theories. 
We  believe  the  second  ;  with  the  added  proviso, 
however,  of  appeal  to  the  unknowable.  There  is 
more  than  can  be  possibly  conceived  in  both  soul 
and  body.  When  we  speak  of  efficiency  therefore, 
we  are  merely  giving  our  last  idea,  and  when  we  say 
that  thought  is  but  an  added  efficiency,  it  is  rather 


1 6  The   Soul  not  Immortal. 

giving  an  apology  for  a  truth.  We  only  mean  that 
the  mind,  as  a  separate  substance,  has  not  a  thing 
to  show  for  itself  in  the  world's  analogies. 

Behold,  therefore,  our  doctrine.  It  is  not  to  be 
encompassed  by  any  one  of  these  theories.  We 
believe  that  Scripture  inclines  to  one  of  them  ;  and 
we  may  be  often  tempted  to  use  its  language.  But 
if  we  do,  we  are  earnest  to  warn  our  readers  that  it 
is  illustrative  rather  than  enjoined.  The  whole  doc- 
trine that  we  plead  for  is,  that  the  soul  dies  at  death. 

If  Abraham  lie  in  the  grave,  Abraham  will  think 
and  act  again  no  sooner  than  I.  It  was  so  with 
Christ.  These  simple  inferences  will  shed  light  over 
all  our  purposes  of  teaching.  When  our  Saviour 
died,  He  was  out  of  being,  qua  Jiomo,  till  the  day  He 
rose  again.  There  is  abundant  sense  in  His  descend- 
ing into  hell  (Jiades).  Adam  is  still  extinct ;  and  if 
the  judgment  should  be  after  millions  of  years,  you 
and  I  will  wait  for  it.  My  brother  who  dies  to-night, 
sinks  into  his  original  nothingness,  with  nothing  to 
show  for  it  that  he  be  raised  again,  except  his  dust 
that  is  sleeping  in  the  grave,  and  his  spirit,  if  you 
choose  to  think  so,  existing  in  its  dreamless  essence. 

We  take  in  all  the  consequences.  But  we  con- 
sider it  honoring  our  Master  to  believe  that  our  life 
is  hid  with  Christ  in  God;  that  our  souls,  if  they 
rest,  rest  as  in  John's  vision  (Rev.  vi :  9)  under  the 
altar  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  ;  that  we  have  a  life 
in  court ;  that  justice  will  call  up  the  lost  (Jo.  v  : 
29)  ;  that  the  thousands  of  years  that  intervene  shall 
be  to  us  as  they  are  to  the  Lord  but  as  one  day 
(2  Pet.  iii :  8)  ;  and  '*  that  He  which  raised  up  the 


Abhorrent   to   Prevailing    Viezvs.  ly 

Lord  Jesus  shall  raise  up  us  also  by  Jesus  and  shall 
present  us  with  you  "(2  Cor.  iv  :   14). 


CHAPTER   II. 

The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  the  Views  of  Christendom. 

The  view  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  in  which 
we  have  been  brought  up  is,  that  the  soul  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  body.  I  mean  by  that  that  it  lives 
with  it  on  earth,  but  that  it  will  soar  away  from  it 
when  the  body  arrives  at  dissolution.  This  pictures 
two  essences,  the  one  divisible  and  organized  into 
life ;  the  other  one  ;  and  this  one  essence  incapable 
of  death,  and  held  back  from  sleep  by  the  necessities 
of  its  being. 

Now  arrayed  about  this  queen-cell,  as  though  it 
were  the  centre  of  the  hive,  will  be  all  the  faith  of 
nearly  all  believers.  I  cannot  attack  it  without  in- 
jury. It  is  not  a  vital  doctrine.  In  fact  it  is  a  very 
incredible  doctrine,  if  we  think  of  it  as  a  new  thing 
as  it  would  first  strike  us  when  we  heard  it  for  the 
first  time  promulgated, — that  there  is  a  floating  spirit 
that  is  nested  in  us  like  a  bird,  and  which  a  bullet 
crushing  our  brain  would  set  flying  at  once  as  we 
scare  an  eaglet  from  his  rock !  But  I  may  impair 
half  the  catechism,  suspect  the  covenant  of  grace, 
doubt  the  atonement,  deny  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  advance  a  creed  that  will  shake  all  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,  and  it  will  not  meet  so  sharp  a 
recoil  as  a  denial  of  existence  between  death  and 
judgment. 


1 8  The   Soul  not  Immortal, 

Now  why  is  this  ? 

1.  Partly  perhaps  from  the  innocence  of  the  doc- 
trine. Men's  hearts  have  fiercely  grappled  with  the 
doctrines  of  grace,  and  the  church  has  been  obliged 
to  become  aware  of  subsisting  differences.  But 
death — whether  it  be  a  sleep  or  a  change, — or  indeed 
which  is  to  be  preferred,  whether  a  sleep  till  we  are 
judged,  or  a  state  in  which  we  cannot  be  tormented 
in  the  body, — these  are  vague  questions;  and  there- 
fore sinners  have  not  thrown  themselves  upon  them 
with  opposing  force.  At  any  rate,  the  doctrine  be- 
ing rarely  called  into  doubt,  has  giant  hold.  The 
immortality  of  the  soul  has  so  thoroughly  pervaded 
thought  that  the  man  who  challenges  it  throws  the 
glove  into  nearly  all  the  camps  of  believers. 

2.  Again,  it  has  scenic  force.  The  heavier  doc- 
trines, Hke  the  sumpter  wagons  of  a  pilgrimage, 
travel  slowly.  Immortality  is  every  where.  It  fills 
all  our  visions.  If  we  threaten,  we  call  this  up.  If 
we  soothe,  we  use  this.  And  m.arvellous  as  is  the 
thought  itself  that  when  I  die  I  live  still,  it  is  not  so 
marvellous  as  the  feeling  of  certainty  with  which  I 
administer  to  the  dying  so  wonderful  a  consolation. 
It  is  so  detailed.  *  You  are  not  dying :  you  are  going 
on  to  live.  Your  body  is  sinking  in  decay:  but  your 
soul  will  free  itself.  You  will  be  in  the  higher  world 
to-night.'  There  is  something  startling  in  the 
scenic  vividness  with  which  these  things  are  offered  ; 
as  though  there  had  been  historic  search,  and  as 
though  men  had  come  back  as  from  Spain  or  Pales- 
tine and  reported  the  things  that  are  to  be  wit- 
nessed.    Death,  a  weird   spectre  in    itself,  is   made 


Abhorrent   to   PrcvaiHus::    Views. 


e> 


more  startling  ;  for  we  tell  men  without  a  moment's 
hesitation  that  dear  friends  whom  they  have  lost  will 
be  in  their  embrace  the  next  moment.  We  shrink 
not  from  sending  messages  to  them.  And  we  let 
the  brother  launch  out  into  the  dark  with  as  strong 
a  conviction  as  we  can  make  that  he  is  going  among 
friends,  and  that  a  message  to  Christ  Himself  would 
reach  Him  the  next  hour,  warm  from  the  lips  of  those 
who  stand  round  the  bed. 

Of  course  such  scenic  certainties  are  not  to  be 
displaced  like  colder  thinkings. 

3.  And  then  the  rhetoric  of  such  thoughts. 
They  have  pervaded  language.  What  chance  for 
different  reasonings  when  each  man  in  the  tonjjue  in 
Avhich  he  was  born  finds  immortal  life  imbedded  ? 
This  is  the  unfair  difficulty.  The  flight  to  heaven, 
the  parting  with  the  vesture  of  the  body,  the  advent 
among  the  blest,  are  beautiful  words  with  which  we 
comfort  children;  and  we  mix  into  their  very  souls 
the  tender  conviction  that  lost  relatives  are  waiting 
for  them  beyond  the  tomb. 

And  the  people's  literature  !  What  hope  is  there 
that  we  can  bend  the  current  of  universal  thought  ? 
and  what  comfort  can  there  be,  through  one  life- 
time at  least,  for  any  school  who  shall  so  thwart 
common  speech  as  that  Shakspeare  shall  have  to  be 
emended  on  every  page,  or  allowed  for,  at  least,  in 
beautiful  but  obsolete  conceits,  where  he  permits 
himself  to  travel  in  the  customary  path  in  speaking 
of  immortality? 

4.  Warning,  too, — what  must  become  of  that  ? 
How  can  we  afford  to  relax  anything,  and  to  give 


20  TJie   Soul  not   InimortaL 

up  the  idea  that  the  sinner  will  go  down  quick  into 
hell? 

5.  It  is  precisely  here  that  the  fifth  difficulty  will 
appear  most  pressing.  '  How  can  you  imagine  that 
you  are  right  when  the  whole  world  is  so  continually 
against  you  ?  Almost  anything  can  be  thrown  in 
doubt  ;  but  when  man,  with  singular  harmony,  has 
almost  every  where  adopted  this  doctrine  of  the  dis- 
embodied state,  \\\\y  do  you  disturb  the  preaching 
to  the  impenitent  ?' 

6.  Particularly,  as  men  will  say,  *  If  this  doc- 
trine be  not  true,  how  can  we  be  sure  of  anything  ? 
If  a  teaching  can  lie  quiet  a  thousand  years,  and 
then  the  Bible  itself  be  suddenly  found  to  undo  it — 
then  what  next  ? '  This  is  indeed  our  sad  circum- 
stance. We  find  the  Bible  squarely  denying  immor- 
tality. Almost  the  whole  of  our  race  squarely  as- 
sert it.  Quixote  and  his  wind-mills  will  in  spite  of 
ourselves  heave  into  view — nay  Hobbes,  and  his  bad 
skepticism.  What  are  we  to  do?  We  have  kept 
these  Scriptures  long  enough  for  motives  of  pru- 
dence. May  we  repress  them  altogether?  We 
think  deliberately  not.  Though  the  church  is  in 
one  sense  infallible ;  that  is,  has  never  been  de- 
serted by  the  doctrines  of  the  truth, — yet  in  single 
ones  it  has  ;  in  Christ's  time,  as  to  His  temporal 
reign ;  in  Paul's  time,  as  to  salvation  being  for  the 
Jews ;  in  Calvin's  time,  as  to  the  use  of  the  sword  ; 
and  in  Cranmer's  time,  as  to  the  right  of  kings ; 
and  though  it  seems  baseless  to  say  so,  yet  we  be- 
lieve that  scores  of  errors  are  sleeping  unwatched 
under  the  cloak  of  Christendom. 


Abhorrent   to    Catholic    Corrtiptions.  21 

Let  each  man  light  his  farthing  candle.  If  it  be 
a  folly,  it  will  go  out.  If  it  be  a  shame,  it  will  be 
his.  If  it  be  a  mischief,  it  will  not  be  to  the  Church  ; 
for  all  things  will  work  together  for  her  good.  If  it 
have  a  particle  of  truth,  it  will  help  even  the  light  of 
the  sun.  And  if  it  be  fetid  error,  it  will  help  the 
triumph  of  truth  ;  for  truth,  like  a  horse's  hoof  upon 
the  pavement,  is  kept  only  healthy  by  being  beaten 
to  the  earth,  and  made  ceaselessly  to  put  in  practice 
its  wonderful  defences. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  Certain  Corrupt  Forms  of  Faith. 

The  doctrine  that  souls  live  in  a  disembodied 
state  has  been  made  the  vehicle  of  the  chief  curses 
of  the  Papacy, 

I.  The  Papacy,  like  many  another  creed,  exposes 
us  to  the  unwarranted  dream  that  all  men  may  finally 
be  saved.  The  theatre  of  uneasiness,  certainly,  is 
moved  back  just  beyond  the  grave.  The  great  doc- 
trine of  Purgatory  becomes  a  paramount  one  with 
the  saint,  and  a  means  of  influence  in  extorting  from 
the  people. 

This  doctrine  builds  itself  upon  the  fact  of  im- 
mortality. If  we  were  mortal  like  the  body,  Purga- 
tory would  be  a  phantom  like  the  spirit.  Rome 
takes  the  passage,  **  Went  and  preached  unto  the 
spirits  in  prison  "  (i  Pet.  iii :  19),  a  passage  that  we 
shall  explain  hereafter;  or  she  takes  the  , passage, 
*'  For  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel  preached  also  to 


22  The   Soul   not   Immortal. 

them  that  are  dead  "  (i  Pet.  iv :  6)  ;  or  the  passage, 
*'  Else  what  shall  they  do  which  are  baptized  for  the 
dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not"?  (i  Cor.  xv  :  29),  and 
building  equally  upon  the  general  belief  that  we  arc 
immortal,  they  erect  the  great  fabric  of  purgatorial 
devotion. 

2.  There  comes  in  logically  Prayer  to  the 
Saints. 

3.  There  comes  in  with  equal  consistency  of 
course,  Prayers  for  the  Saints  : 

4.  Then  Masses  for  the  dead  : 

5.  Then  direct  gifts  to  pray  the  departed  out  of 
Purgatory : 

6.  Then  Indulgences  : 

7.  Of  course  Canonization  of  Saints  : 

8.  And  then,  lastly,  Mariolatry,  with  all  its  ac- 
cursed rites,  preferring  a  sinner  to  the  Almighty. 

Of  course  Papists  would  abhor  our  work  more 
poisonously  than  the  tenderest  believer.  Protestants 
are  not  affected  by  what  we  advocate.  The  doc- 
trines of  grace,  like  the  works  of  a  scratched  watch, 
are  not  entered.  But  Romanism  would  be  struck 
with  death.  Grant  the  infallibility  of  the  Popes,  and 
the  scores  of  them  who  have  pronounced  for  Purga- 
tory become  testifiers  against  the  system. 

The  pence  that  built  St.  Peter's  were  for  a  mis- 
take. Indulgence  had  a  theatre  the  whole  dream 
of  which  was  a  fable.  Purgatory  aimed  at  that 
which  was  the  dust  of  sepulchres.  Mary  was  sleep- 
ing in  her  grave.  And  masses  for  the  dead,  and  in- 
toned prayers,  and  millions  of  consecrated  gold,  were 
lavished  upon  that  which  is  as  senseless  as  a  clod,  or 


Abhor rejit   to    Certain    Superstitions,  23 

upon  saints  whose  tutelar  watch  was  about  as  pre- 
cious as  of  the  vanes  above  their  resting  place. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Doctrine  Abhorrent  to  Certain  Prevalent  Superstitions. 

Nor  would  what  we  are  convinced  of  be  less 
fatal  to  certain  prevalent  superstitions. 

1.  This  ghastly  Spiritualism  which  has  been 
stalking  out  of  its  grave  ever  since  the  Witch  of 
Endor,*  if  men  would  quit  reading  in  their  Bible 
reports  of  spirits,  would  appear  in  its  naked  foolish- 
ness. Clairvoyance  and  mesmeric  utterances  and 
supernatural  feats  and  inspirations  would  come  down 
to  their  natural  Christian  measure,  either  as,  in  ex- 
cessively rare  instances,  by  demon  spirits,  or  as  legit- 
imate plagues  to  the  church  for  having  mistaken  the 
teaching  of  the  Bible,  and  taught  men  about  these 
disembodied  sprites  in  derogation  to  the  doctrine  of 
a  blessed  resurrection. 

2.  Of  course  all  ghost  stories  would  become 
child's  reading  at  once. 

3.  And,  thirdly,  all  Schleiermacherism  and  Swe- 
denborgian  conceit,  and  spiritual-body  dogma  which 
seems  to  be  coming  up  again  with  renewed  vigor  in 
our  day — a  doctrine  that  would  give  Dives  an  actual 

*  We  do  not  doubt  that  the  witch  summoned  Samuel  ;  and  we  do 
not  deny  that  among  the  endless  juggles  of  necromancy,  the  devil  may 
have  been  allowed  to  work  occasional  miracle  :  but  if  our  doctrine  be 
proved,  of  course  ghosts  as  ghosts  must  disappear  from  the  imagina- 
tions of  men. 


24  The   Soul  not   Lnmortal. 

**  tongue  "  (Lu.  xvi :  24)  the  day  he  was  buried, — all 
this  would  have  to  be  disowned  at  once;  and  we 
must  teach  the  doctrine,  not  that  a  finer  frame  sails 
off  from  this  at  the  moment  of  dissolution,  but  that 
all  life  extinguishes  itself  in  dying,  and  that  the  gra- 
cious gospel  truth  is,  "  that  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth,  they  that 
have  done  good  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and 
they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation  "  (Jo.  v:  28,  29). 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Doctrine,  if  True,  Important. 

So  that  the  doctrine,  if  true,  is  important. 

We  wish  we  could  present  it  as  it  lies  in  our 
mind.  We  wish  we  could  present  it  better  than  it 
ties  in  our  mind.  For  the  doctrine  is  of  so  radical 
a  nature,  that  so  full  a  book  as  the  Bible  ought  to 
determine  whether  we  have  a  separate  soul  or  not. 
We  wish  we  could  exhaust  the  evidence,  and  like 
some  fine  judge  in  the  Supreme  Court,  lay  the  testi- 
mony on  both  sides  so  deftly  that  the  case  could  be 
determined, — 

I.  For  how  grand  if  this  could  be  found  to  be 
the  Providential  method  for  cleansing  the  Augean 
stable  of  the  Papacy. 

I  do  not  know  that  the  polarity  of  the  magnet 
raises  bread  or  cooks  victuals.  I  do  not  know.  It 
may  operate  in  these  things :  but  I  cannot  see  it. 


Doctrine,    if   True,    Import  ant.  25 

I  do  not  sec  that  the  immortality  of  the  soul  does 
much  for  our  Saviour's  doctrine. 

But  I  do  sec  that  its  not  being  immortal  corrects 
a  host  of  errors. 

I  do  not  see  that  my  soul's  perishing  at  death 
obscures  redemption,  or  affects  in  the  least  degree 
inability,  the  soul's  depravity,  the  saints'  persever- 
ance, imputation,  expiation,  or  any  of  the  decrees 
of  grace. 

But  I  do  see  that  if  you  will  "  hide  me  in  the 
grave"  (Job  xiv :  13),  I  sleep  over  the  time,  that 
the  Papist  has  polluted  with  his  myths.  And  as  I 
see  nothing  but  resurrection  in  the  Bible,  I  am  de- 
termined to  strike  at  immortality;  and  who  knows 
that  this  seton  in  the  neck  of  the  Church,  viz.,  a  dis- 
embodied spirit,  may  not  be  the  thread  that  has 
gathered  through  the  ages  much  of  the  corruption 
of  the  church,  and,  poor  figment  as  it  is,  that  it  may 
not  be  the  will  of  the  Master  that  it  may  finally  be 
pulled  away,  with  all  the  foulness  that  it  has  gath- 
ered through  the  ages  of  its  history? 

2.  But  not  only  would  Spiritualism  and  Popery 
and  Swedenborgian  conceits  perish  if  the  spirit  did, 
but  we  foresee  another  triumph,  with  a  miserable 
Scientism. 

The  studious  are  periling  the  doctrine  that  man 
can  think  without  a  body.  We  deny  that  they  can 
settle  it  ;  but  they  can  throw  probabilities  forward 
that  can  beguile  many  an  unstable  soul.  The  scalpel 
has  certainly  moved  nearer  to  the  facts  ;  and  con- 
sumption of  material  cells  has  actually  been  seen  in 
every  pulse  of  thinking. 


26  The   Soul  not   Iinnwrtal. 

What  a  strange  Providence  it  would  be  if  men 
should  taunt  the  Christian  and  say,  Look  now  at  your 
doctrine  of  immortality,  and  as  in  the  instance  of 
Galileo's  globe,  should  rear  amazing  probabilities 
against  our  thinking, — if,  as  in  late  geologic  revela- 
tions they  could  so  fortify  their  analogies  as  to  make 
it  well  nigh  certain  that  a  man  cannot  think  without 
a  brain, — how  marvellous,  just  as  the  last  battering 
ram  boomed,  and  the  enemy  were  shouting  our  dis- 
comfiture, if  the  Bible  should  appear,  as  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  Mosaic  attack,  nestled  in  another 
camp,  divine  Providence  having  shed  fresh  light  upon 
the  word  of  truth,  and  men  having  arisen  who  found 
in  the  Book  itself  that  priceless  proof — I  mean  un- 
known agreements  with  the  facts  in  nature ! 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Doctrine,  if  Untrue,  Unimportant. 

On  the  other  hand  the  doctrine,  if  untrue,  could 
work  but  little  mischief.  The  most  serious  evil  that 
could  possibly  arise  from  it  is  that  which  has  been 
already  alluded  to  in  the  unsettling  of  Scripture. 
Men  would  say.  How  can  we  be  sure  of  anything 
doctrinal?  But  bating  this,  which  I  confess  should 
be  an  occasion  of  misgiving,  the  promulger  would  be 
as  innocent  as  a  child.  For  let  us  trace  conse- 
quences. Where  would  the  belief  impugn  ortho- 
doxy.'^ Suppose  a  soul,  sinking  into  death,  sup- 
poses that  it  will  wake  again  only  for  the  judg- 
ment.    Does  that  affect  the  Gospel  ?     Suppose  the 


Order   of  Disciissioji.  2/ 

whole  world  goes  to  sleep  thus  universally  con- 
vinced. Suppose  they  fare  differently,  and  the 
whole  turns  out  to  be  a  mistake  ;  where  will  it  affect 
salvation  ?  When  a  soul  is  garnered  in  the  grave, 
atonement  and  pardon,  justification  and  all  the 
forensic  doctrines  both  of  grace  and  penalty,  are  safe 
no  matter  when  we  rise.  The  feat  of  living  disem- 
bodied could  not  help  any  of  the  promises.  The 
times  and  the  seasons  God  might  safely  keep  in  His 
own  power.  And  that  a  soul  cannot  sleep  at  death 
would  be  as  vain  a  principle  of  ethics  as  that  a  man 
could  not  sleep  over  night  for  that  it  would  destroy 
his  responsible  identity  to  break  the  thread  of  his 
thought  as  between  night  and  morning. 

We  work,  therefore,  with  a  less  troubled  con- 
science. If  we  mistake,  the  gospel  is  untouched. 
If  we  do  not,  we  pull  down,  as  far  as  men  accept  our 
reasoning,  shameless  conceits,  which  have  grown 
venerable  in  age ;  and  which  have  so  dazed  the 
Church  ;  and  which  have  made  our  Protestant  tribe 
but  a  slender  part  of  it. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Order  of  Discussion. 

To  keep  paramount  the  fact  that  Scripture  sug- 
gested all  that  we  are  writing,  we  intended  to  put 
Scripture  first,  and  indeed  all  our  book  was  to  be 
chiefly  under  this  head, — "  THE  IMMORTALITY  OF 
THE  SOUL  NOT  IN  SCRIPTURE."  But  as  a  mere 
mechanical  device  we  changed  this  for  the  conveni- 


28  TJie   Soul  not   luiviortal. 

ence  of  the  reader.  It  being  altogether  unnatural 
to  complete  a  work  like  this,  and  say  not  one  word 
about  the  philosophical  question,  we  devised  a  short 
space  for  that :  but  observing  that  there  it  would  be 
tliat  by  the  necessities  of  the  case  we  would  be  driven 
to  the  closest  definition,  we  saw  the  advantage  of  ar- 
ranging that  first.  Will  the  reader,  therefore,  under- 
stand our  policy?  Scripture  is  our  whole  appeal. 
Our  resort  to  reason  is  chiefly  to  show  that  reason 
never  could  resolve  the  difficulty.  That  will  be  our 
very  thesis.  But  in  bringing  that  out  we  will  have 
to  define  our  being  immortal  very  accurately.  To 
avoid  doing  that  twice,  we  find  it  mechanically  better 
to  fix  an  order  of  discussion  that  shall  place  reason 
first.  Let  it  be  under  a  sort  of  protest.  This  is  a 
book  entirely  bred  of  texts  of  Scripture.  And  that 
we  cannot  put  them  first  and  all  the  time,  is  a  grief 
to  us;  and  is  only  submitted  to,  to  avoid  that  hate- 
ful thing  in  any  writing,  a  striking  twice  unnecessarily 
upon  the  same  descriptions. 

A  clear  idea,  therefore,  of  all  that  we  mean  to 
teach  will  be  reached  best  in  the  outset  under  the 
heading,— THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  NOT  IN 
REASON.  Then  will  follow  the  main  body  of  the 
work, — THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  SOUL  NOT  IN 
SCRIPTURE.  And  then,  to  anticipate  the  retort,  How 
did  the  world  come  so  universally  to  believe  the 
opposite,  we  shall  consider  as  our  last  head, — THE 
IMMORTALITY   OF  THE  SOUL  A  RELIC  OF  PAGANISM. 


II. 

THE   IMMORTALITY  OF  THE   SOUL  NOT   IN   REASON. 


CHAPTER   L 
Can   Reason  be  Unmistakable? 

1.  If  common  sal  ammoniac  be  put  in  a  glass 
shade  under  certain  circumstances  of  heat  and 
moisture,  it  will  effloresce  into  the  most  exquisite 
growths,  shooting  up  over  the  surface  of  the  glass  in- 
to the  most  plant-like  shapes  of  leaves  and  branches. 
Is  it  alive?  Nobody  dreams  it.  Is  it  dual?  No. 
So  that  I  can  heat  the  glass  more,  and  melt  all  back 
into  a  mass,  and  no  body  dreams  that  there  was 
more  than  matter. 

2.  Next  I  plant  a  bean  in  the  glass.  Presently  I 
get  an  efflorescence  not  a  whit  more  beautiful. 
What  have  I  now?  The  bean  has  wonderful  digni- 
ties. It  can  climb.  It  can  observe  wholesome  laws. 
It  mounts  with  the  precision  of  an  animal  change- 
lessly  from  East  to  North.  Put  it  in  the  ground, 
and  without  eyes  it  will  know  the  way  upward.  Put 
a  bone  near  it ;  and  if  it  be  like  the  grape,  it  will 
burrow  a  whole  yard  towards  it,  and  though  in  the 
lap  of  the  dark  earth,  go  pilgrim   to  it  with  many 


30  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

roots,  and  web  its  spongelets  over  it,  and  peer  in 
into  all  its  pores,  that  it  may  eat  up  all  its  substance. 
Does  matter  do  this  ?  Certainly.  Or  rather  (for  we 
prefer  always  to  speak  of  ^.he  efficiency  of  Jehovah), 
God  blesses  it  with  life.  And  yet  no  mortal  thinks 
that  there  are  two  things  in  the  bean,  first,  mat- 
ter, and  second,  life,  in  any  such  sense  that  if  we 
could  kill  it  shut  up  in  the  vase,  a  something 
would  be  shut  in  with  it  other  than  its  material 
molecules. 

3.  Now  take  a  dog.  What  have  we  in  him  ? 
Suppose  I  shoot  him,  and  tumble  him  into  the  earth. 
Is  there  a  spirit  that  floats  away  ?  And  yet  remem- 
ber, that  grey  cur  was  very  intelligent.  He  had 
thought,  and  arrangement,  and  memory,  and  fine 
judgment,  some  said,  more  than  his  master.  He  had 
discriminating  affection,  and  conscience,  and  remorse, 
— at  least  it  seemed  so.  What  had  he  not  that  served 
to  ally  him  with  what  is  purely  human  ?  We 
tumble  him  into  his  grave,  and  what  remains?  Not 
one  man  in  a  thousand  but  believes  that  that  is  all 
of  him.  We  cover  him  with  the  earth  that  we  have 
dug  out,  and  the  analogies  perfectly  smother  us  if 
we  dream  of  his  surviving  afterward. 

I  say,  analogies ;  for  if  the  dog  lives,  then  the 
chalk  cliff  lives,  and  there  has  been  a  survival  from 
the  whole  coast  of  England.  If  the  dog  lives,  then 
the  coral  lives,  or  at  least  the  coral  worm  ;  and  whole 
continents  must  account  for  their  immortal  builders. 
If  the  dog  lives,  then  lime  mountains  and  whole 
Saharas  of  calcareous  plain,  and  ribs  of  provinces 
that   have  dropped   some   day  shell  by  shell  under 


Can   Reason   he    Unmistakable?  31 

pressure  of  the  sea,  are  the  charnel  houses  of  exist- 
ing spirits.  And  the  grasshoppers  with  their  drum- 
ming hordes,  the  horsemen  of  the  prophet,  outweigh- 
ing in  tremendous  mass  the  mammals  of  half  a  pro- 
vince, and  preying  on  each  other  as  plant  devours 
plant,  are  nevertheless,  all  distinguishably  in  life, 
and  continuously  kept ;  for  the  analogy  that  would 
spare  the  dog,  would  crowd  us  with  immortals  in  a 
-way  that  would  make  the  Hindoo  doctrine  of  Trans- 
migration a  delightful  relief  from  the  nightmare  of 
an  impossible  arithmetic. 

4.  But  deny  the  dog,  and  where  is  your  analogy 
for  the  man  ? 

Now  we  drop  at  once  to  the  right  level  when  we 
say,  that  the  immortality  of  man  must  depend  solely 
upon  Scripture. 

The  salt  effloresces,  and  melts.  The  bean  grows, 
and  withers  into  dust.  The  dog  dies,  and  that  is  all 
of  him.  Now  if  a  man  survives,  it  must  be  by  a 
special  gift ;  for  it  is  surely  out  of  analogy  with  the 
whole  creation. 

Let  us  show  what  the  Bible  will  have  to  do,  by 
proceeding  in  order: — 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  will  have  to  overcome  a 
distinct  analogy.  Ten  million  vertebrated  species 
give  up  their  life,  and  are  buried  hopelessly  in  their 
grave.     One  species  claims  to  be  immortal. 

2.  And  yet  the  analogy  in  all  outward  respects  is 
singularly  perfect.  All  die.  All  carry  to  the  grave 
the  same  heart  and  lungs,  the  same  brain  and  life. 
They  have  originated  in  the  same  birth,  and  are 
nourished  by  the  same  food,  and  possess  the  same 


32  Innnortality   not   in  Reason, 

senses,  and  the  same  fear  of  death,  and  the  same 
zest  for  life,  and  jealousies  and  affections,  as  each 
other.  Moreover  they  have  a  like  intelligence.  Now 
I  do  not  dream  of  settling  the  question  where  they 
differ.  I  only  say,  that  they  agree  :  and  that  there 
would  be  a  violent  presumption,  save  on  a  religious 
ground,  against  believing  that  the  dog  unconsciously 
sleeps,  and  that  the  man  eternally  wakes ;  when  the 
dog  falls  into  his  grave  with  an  intelligence  so  like 
the  man's,  and  with  a  heart  and  a  life  so  physically 
similar  in  all  that  was  previous  in  his  being. 

3.  Add  to  this  that  the  scalpel  of  the  student  in- 
creases this  analogy  ;  and  the  torch  of  the  chemist 
— in  fact  the  search  of  the  metaphysician.  The 
leaning  of  modern  thought  advances  sensation. 
The  body  is  asserting  a  wider  scope.  And  when  we 
find  that  its  tissues  actually  exhaust  themselves 
in  thought,  and  that  its  brain-substance  and  nerves 
actually  telegraph  thought  we  cannot  tell  how,  but 
with  appreciable  physical  results, — the  analogy 
between  the  dog  and  the  man  is  actually  growing 
greater  all  the  time,  so  long  as  we  confine  ourselves 
to  facts  other  than  those  which  we  gather  from  the 
pages  of  the  Bible. 

4.  Besides,  analogy  is  the  whole  of  argument. 
Why  is  this  not  more  insisted  on?  Butler's  Analogy 
is  in  fact  Butler's  attempt  at  every  possible  reason- 
ing. There  is  an  immediate  consciousness ;  but  this 
is  no  field  for  reasoning  whatever.  Accepting  im- 
mediate consciousness,  all  that  we  build  upon  it  is 
its  analogies  ;  and  as  few  people  will  be  so  hardy 
as  to  say  that  we  are  conscious  of  immortahty,  we 


Can   Reason    he    Unmistakable?  33 

will  ignore  those  who  do/^  and  then  .the  analogy  as 
to  the  soul  is  the  one  determinate  test  of  all  that  we 
are  to  believe. 

5.  But  Scripture  !  What  are  we  to  do  with 
Scripture?  Let  us  recapitulate,  i.  We  have  shown 
that  the  analogy  is  against  our  being  immortal.  2. 
We  have  shown  that  that  analogy  is  very  strong. 
3.  We  have  shown  that  it  is  growing  stronger  under 
modern  light.  4.  And  we  have  shown  that  analogy 
is  our  only  expedient  of  reasoning.  We  would  seem 
therefore  to  have  settled  the  whole  question  at  a 
blow. 

But  then,  fortunately  for  man,  there  are  higher 
analogies.  We  have  higher  consciousnesses.  And  on 
those  consciousnesses  are  built  higher  foundations  of 
reasoning.  There  are  analogies  of  testimony  ;  and 
when  those  analogies  carry  me  to  the  receipt  of  the 
Bible,  I  weigh  it  with  other  analogies  still,  namely, 
with  my  conscious  moral  light,  and  with  my  chief 
experimental  impressions.  The  scalpel  may  deceive 
me.  So  may  the  Bible.  They  are  both  by  analogy. 
But  my  poor  reason  is  so  much  more  helped  in  the 
region  of  revelation  ;  that  is,  to  express  it  critically, 
so  much  more  able  to  use  the  stepping-stones  of  my 
more  certain  forms  of  consciousness, — that  my  whole 
appeal  is  to  the  Bible.  I  think  it  in  the  very  highest 
degree  unlikely  that  the  soul  is  immortal  :  but  show 
me  that  it  is,  out  of  the  Bible,  and  the  unlikelihoods 

*  We  have  no  choice.  It  is  impossible  to  reason  about  conscious- 
ness. If  a  man  says,  I  am  conscious  I  am  immortal,  what  can  we  say  ? 
We  can  only  remind  him  that  he  is  declaring  that  he  is  conscious  to- 
day of  his  existence  to-morrow  ! 


34  Iinuwrtality   not   in   Reason, 

are  all  the  other  way.  Let  me  be  thoroughly  un- 
derstood here.  All  the  analogies  of  earth  are  in 
favor  of  my  being  mortal.  This  we  shall  attempt  to 
prove.  Analogy,  moreover,  must  decide  the  fact. 
Analogy,  however,  is  not  infallible.  And  as  there 
are  higher  analogies  for  man  which  furnish  the  base 
for  a  revelation,  these  are  the  ones  that  must  end 
the  appeal.  We  will  bring  out  the  others  ;  but  it 
will  be  like  race-horses  which  we  expect  to  be  out- 
stripped. It  is  only  the  fact  that  the  Bible  has 
taught  me  that  I  am  mortal,  that  emboldens  me  to 
premise  the  proof,  that  reason  is  of  the  same  idea. 


CHAPTER    II. 
Reasons  in  Favor  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 

To  give  reasons  against  immortality  in  their 
clearest  shape,  it  will  be  wise  to  exhibit  first  those 
that  appear  to  be  in  its  favor. 

To  do  this,  it  will  take  too  much  time  to  exhibit 
all  the  forms  of  immortality,  and  to  fit  the  proof  to 
the  specific  nature  of  the  doctrine  as  each  man  may 
choose  to  hold  it. 

Some  are  supernaturalists.  They  hold  that  the 
body  now-a-days  is  necessary  to  thought,  but  that 
when  we  die,  the  soul  is  supernaturally  lifted  and  set 
off  upon  an  independent  being. 

Some  are  naturalists,  and  believe  with  the  great 
herd  that  the  body  and  soul  are  distinct  existences. 

Some  are  materialists,  and  get  their  immortality 


Reasons    in   Favor   of  Ininwrtality.  35 

like  the  arrangement  of  a  Chinese  box,  one  body  in- 
side of  another. 

And  some  are  transmigrationists. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  should  go  over  all  the 
list. 

Some  arguments  suit  one  form  better  than  an- 
other. But  it  will  suffice  if  we  exhibit  all  in  gross. 
The  doctrine  is,  that  consciousness  survives  death. 
Before  we  oppose  it,  it  will  become  us  to  make  the 
very  fairest  exhibition  of  the  arguments  that  have 
been  thought  to  make  it  good. 

I.  And  in  the  first  place  it  has  been  said  that 
thought  is  so  different  from  extension — or,  to  talk 
more  comprehensively,  that  color  and  shape  and 
motion  and  all  the  more  usual  attributes  of  body  are 
so  different  from  consciousness,  that  we  cannot  con- 
ceive of  one  of  them  as  the  attribute  of  the  same 
substance  as  the  other.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  old 
triumphant  demonstration.  Matter  has  gross  parti- 
cles and  brute  traits  ;  mind  has  the  attribute  oi  in- 
telligence. The  perishing  of  one,  therefore,  is  no- 
thing, satisfactory  at  least,  as  to  any  decay  of  the 
other;  nay,  Butler  would  hold,  leaves  room  under 
the  light  of  analogy  for  a  higher  spiritual  being. 

Now  what  is  this  reasoning  exactly  ? 

If  it  be,  that  thought  is  different  from  motion, 
and  that  therefore  the  thinking  thing  and  the  mov- 
ing thing  must  be  different  substances,  that  proves 
too  much,  for  color  and  sound  are  different,  and  yet 
the  one  harp  breeds  both  of  them. 

If  it  means  that  they  are  so  different,  and  in  fact 
so  very  and   essentially  different,  that  will   not  an- 


36  Immortality   not  in  Reason. 

swer ;  for  so  are  other  attributes.  Light,  for  example, 
is  entirely  different  from  hardness  ;  and  so  are  po- 
larity and  attractive  force.  What  is  the  exact  gist 
of  the  argumentation  ?  It  will  not  do  to  say,  Where 
attributes  differ  substances  differ;  for  attraction 
through  millions  of  miles,  and  extension  through  an 
inch  or  through  a  yard,  are  unimaginable  as  to  their 
accord  ;  and  yet  who  would  deny  them  as  attributes 
of  the  same  materiality  ? 

II.  Let  us,  therefore,  change  that  argument  a 
little.  It  is  not  that  they  are  stark  different  traits, 
but  that  we  cannot  produce  both  by  laying  mole- 
cules together.  We  grant  that  color  is  different  from 
force,  but  we  can  arrange  for  both  of  them.  All  the 
subtler  attributes  of  body,  and  even  those  that  im- 
press sense,  as  for  example  light  and  fragrance,  we 
can  produce  by  laying  molecules  together ;  but  we 
cannot  produce  thought.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
thought  as  born  in  a  solution,  or  produced  out  of  a 
mass,  however  subtle  the  ingredients  that  we  dis- 
pose together. 

Now  what  is  the  exact  logic  ? 

Conceiving  things  we  throw  out  of  the  scale  at 
once.  We  do  not  suppose  it  was  intended.  We 
cannot  conceive  of  gravity.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
smell.  We  do  not  suppose  that  any  one  will  shut 
out  as  an  attribute  of  matter  anything  because  of 
what  we  can  or  what  we  cannot  conceive."^ 

On  the  other  hand,  our  antagonist  would  not  care 

*  Unless  the  want  of  conception  is  at  such  an  extreme  that  the 
language  employed  is  positively  without  idea.  In  that  case  of  course 
faith  in  anything  would  be,  in  terms,  perfectly  absurd. 


Reasons    in   Favor   of  Innnortality.  37 

for  the  debate  if  he  caught  sight  of  it  as  a  mere 
question  of  language.  The  Nottoway,  when  it  joins 
the  Meherrin  River,  drops  the  name  of  Nottoway, 
and  is  called  the  Chowan.  Who  would  not  resent  it 
with  disgust  if  he  were  entangled  a  whole  day  in  a 
debate  whether  the  Meherrin  poured  its  waters  into 
Albemarle  Sound  ?  This  is  a  very  important  re- 
mark. If,  as  it  is  reasonable  to  think,  matter  is 
called  matter  in  its  earlier  and  grosser  exhibitions, 
to  say  that  matter  does  not  think  is  simply  to  say 
that  thought  is  not  a  phenomenon  that  conferred  its 
name.  Give  it  other  efficiencies,  or  let  it  take  in 
other  affluents  as  the  Chowan  does,  and  then  it  be- 
comes soul,  the  only  question  being  whether  this  is 
an  impossible  condition  of  the  case  ;  and  now  the 
argument  that  would  assert  that  it  is,  is  nakedly 
this, — that  we  can  put  together  molecules  and  pro- 
duce color,  and  that  we  can  put  together  molecules 
and  produce  sound  and  smell,  and  so  of  all  those 
things  that  we  are  accustomed  to  call  material  attri- 
butes, but  we  cannot  put  together  molecules  and 
produce  thought.  This  is  the  fairest  statement  for 
our  adversary  that  we  can  possibly  achieve. 

And  it  amounts  to  nothing. 

The  argument  sternly  given  is  that  something 
cannot  produce  thought.  We  should  be  fools  if  we 
did  not  insist  that  the  argument  should  be  positive. 
But  now  something  cannot  produce  life.  We  are 
insane  or  else  that  answer  is  articulately  complete. 

I  put  molecules  into  a  glass  vase,  and  cannot 
arrange  them  into  intelligence.  But  I  put  molecules 
into  a  glass  vase,  and  cannot  arrange   them   into  a 


$8  Inunortality   not   in   Reason. 

bean-stalk.  The  man  who  says  that  the  bean-stalk 
is  not  simply  matter  is  making  a  vegetable  spirit. 
The  man  who  says  that  a  man  is  not  simply  matter 
is  making  a  human  spirit ;  and  thereby  he  is  either 
changing  a  name  like  the  Meherrin  river,  or  he  is 
building  upon  Scripture.  This  argument  from  what 
we  can  make  is  no  better  for  the  soul  of  man  than 
for  Igdrasil  or  a  spectre  of  the  cedars. 

Remember,  we  are  dealing  with  but  a  single 
argument.  There  are  a  whole  list  yet.  We  are 
simply  saying  that  thought  as  the  prerogative  of  men 
is  no  more  demonstrative  of  a  separate  essence,  than 
the  cunning  of  a  bean,  of  some  separate  sprite  that 
floats  away  when  it  withers  upon  the  ground. 

III.  But  now  we  bring  on  more. 

Our  opponent  demonstrates,  and  with  apparent 
aspect  of  being  exact,  that  spirit  cannot  perish  with 
the  body,  because  spirit  is  conscious  of  being  one, 
whereas  body  is  seen  to  be  atomic,  and  its  separate 
parts  can  die  by  being. separated  from  each  other. 

We  might  contest  the  premise.  We  might  utterly 
deny  that  the  soul  was  conscious  of  being  one.  We 
might  say  that  consciousness  to-day  is  separate  from 
my  consciousness  yesterday.  We  might  show  that 
their  weaving  into  one  was  a  beautiful  provision  of 
the  Creator ;  and  peremptorily  challenge  the  far- 
fetched statement  that  the  soul  is  imperishable  be- 
cause it  is  one,  and  that  the  fact  that  it  is  one  is 
boldly  deducible  from  unitary  consciousness. 

Let  all  that  pass  however. 

The  argument  is,  that  the  soul  is  imperishable 
because  it  is  indissoluble  ;  and  that  it  is  indissoluble 


Reasons   in   Favor   of  Lninortality.  39 

because  it  is  one  ;  and  that  it  is  seen  to  be  one  by 
the  fact  of  a  single  consciousness. 

But  now  I  ask,  Has  not  a  worm  a  single  conscious- 
ness ?  What  shall  we  venture  to  say  about  it  ? 
When  we  prick  it,  has  it  as  many  pains  as  it  has 
rings  in  its  length  ?  or  does  it  wince  under  a  unitary 
consciousness  much  as  we  do?  But  I  cut  it  in  two, 
and  each  part  lives  !  Now  how  is  this  ?  I  leave  it  in 
the  sand,  and  to-morrow  there  are  two  perfect  worms. 
How  about  the  argument  for  an  immortal  spirit? 
Nay,  going  to  higher  life  :  I  take  a  zebra,  or  an  ox ; 
and  by  the  prick  of  a  spear  do  I  inflict  one  con- 
sciousness or  two  ?  and  if  I  effect  but  one  conscious- 
ness, then  has  he  not  one  soul,  and  when  his  atoms 
separate,  does  not  some  unity  float  away,  from  this 
imperishable  fact  of  his  being  but  one  existence? 

IV.  Fourthly,  the  soul  is  independent. 

We  treat  each  reason  in  the  list  with  absolute 
precision. 

Abraham,  it  is  said,  was  born  an  infant.  Twenty 
years  afterward  he  had  twenty  times  as  much  weight, 
and  his  body  had  not  a  single  particle  of  the  substance 
that  it  possessed  at  the  beginning.  Then  he  lost  an 
arm,  let  us  suppose.  His  mind,  which  has  been  con- 
scious from  the  first,  is  absolutely  identical  under  all 
this  history.  Let  us  suppose  him  to  be  dying.  The 
change  may  mount  up,  and  may  reach  even  to  his 
forehead,  and  yet  he  is  talking  calmly  to  his  friends, 
and  his  mind  imperturbably  waits  for  the  falling  to 
pieces  of  a  tabernacle. 

The  argument  then  is  this  : — Mind  demonstrates 
itself  to  be  different,  because  it  continues  the  same 


40  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

when  every  atom  has  been  changed  that  was  in  the 
body  ;  when  part  of  the  body  has  been  cut  off  by  the 
knife  ;  and  when  the  mists  of  death  are  Catherine 
upon  its  more  sensuous  vision. 

But  honestly,  is  not  the  argument,  made  strictly 
emphatic,  most  positively  the  other  way?  The 
growth  from  infancy  to  age, — is  not  that  in  the  bean 
and  in  the  conscious  ox  ?  and  is  not  the  life  of  the 
bean  and  the  consciousness  of  the  ox  kept  unitary 
under  this  entire  change  ?  If  I  cut  off  a  limb  does  not 
analogy  explain  everything  that  happens  ?  Is  it  not 
known  that  we  have  vital  parts  ?  Suppose  we  cut 
off  the  head !  We  are  unwilling  that  arguments 
should  be  used  that  would  prejudice  a  cause  in  court ; 
and  never  have  understood  why  men  admit  such 
reasonings  in  their  gravest  interests.  If  I  hammer 
my  head,  does  my  thought  go  right  on  as  before  ?  and 
if  I  cut  off  my  leg,  is  not  that  known  in  its  very 
nature  as  to  the  result,  and  never  expected,  from  its 
analogy  with  brutes,  to  interfere  with  my  more  con- 
scious living  ? 

I  die  :  and  what  happens  ?  Why  exactly  that 
dying  of  thought  which  if  the  brain  could  be  re- 
vealed would  lie  patent  under  the  eye  of  the  physi- 
cian. Why  will  men  venture  such  reasonings?  I 
sit  up  and  talk  to  my  friends  ;  but  does  not  my  body 
sit  up  ?  and  is  not  my  brain  at  work  just  in  propor- 
tion to  my  consciousness  ?  I  confess  that  thought 
is  driven  to  its  citadel ;  but  if  my  limbs  are  all  cold, 
and  a  feathery  pulse  scarce  lingers  below  my  fore- 
head, what  of  that  ?  Is  it  not  rigidly  the  case  that 
thought  is  no  more  strong  in  me  than  my  brain,  and 


Reasons   in   Favor   of  Immortality.  41 

that  there  is  a  rallying  there  just  in  proportion  to  my 
remaining  vision? 

We  complain  of  such  things.  The  facts  are  ob- 
viously on  our  side.  And  yet  Bishop  Butler  himself 
argues,  that  because  a  man  is  sensible  just  up  to  the 
margin  of  the  sepulchre,  he  is,  beyond  it  ;  when 
Butler  himself  would  admit  that  there  is  a  stir  in  his 
brain  precisely  in  proportion  to  the  amount  that 
remains  of  thinking. 

Why  not  give  up  this  argument  avowedly  and  at 
once?  The  soul  is  not  independent  of  the  body. 
On  the  contrary,  whatever  else  may  be  said,  its  de- 
pendence is  complete.  A  blow  renders  it  insensible. 
Infancy  exhibits  it  as  feeble.  Age  makes  it  that  way 
again.  Sickness  deadens  it.  Death  fades  it,  up 
to  the  very  portals  of  dissolution.  And  what  makes 
this  Butlerian  argument  singularly  insincere  is,  that 
all  these  circumstances  are  known  to  enfeeble  the 
brain-action  just  in  proportion  to  the  decay  of  con- 
sciousness. 

V.  A  fifth  argument  is,  that  the  soul  longs  for 
immortality. 

Now  again  let  us  be  exact. 

The  argument  means  that  what  the  soul  longs 
for  it  must  have.  And  the  basis  of  this  persuasion 
is  not  that  we  are  conscious  that  such  must  be  the 
fact,  but  that,  reasoning  from  analogy,  such  must  be 
the  arrangement  of  the  Most  High.  But  then  un- 
fortunately this  does  not  seem  to  be  the  case.  Lost 
men  desire  happiness. 

And  if  it  be  said,  We  are  speaking  of  a  normal 
condition :  man  in  his  natural  state  has  that  which  he 


42  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

is  born  to  long  after, — we  discover  a  difficulty  here. 
Man  in  his  innocent  state  may  have  that  which  he  is 
born  to  desire,  but  surely  we  are  not  to  infer  how 
long  and  how  much.  It  would  seem  unlikely  that 
there  should  be  no  air  for  a  bird  ;  but  it  does  not 
follow  because  a  bird  desires  endlessly  to  live,  that 
therefore  it  is  to  be  gratified.  The  bug  desires  end- 
lessly to  destroy  my  vines.  Now  it  seems  natural 
that  it  should  get  some  vines  to  destroy  ;  but  that  it 
should  be  pleased  endlessly  has  no  warrant  of  analo- 
gous fact. 

VI.  The  argument  grows  stronger  if  it  moves  on 
to  the  sixth  place,  and  builds  itself  upon  an  expecta- 
tion founded  on  considerations  of  justice.  Here  in- 
deed have  been  the  strongest  argumentations. 

Nor  will  we  pause  to  weaken  them  by  still  inter- 
jecting the  brute. 

The  brute  has  conscience.  The  brute  has  some 
appearance  at  least  of  a  moral  part.  Is  there  to  be 
no  retribution  for  the  brute  ?  Why  should  the  bad 
brute  steal  away  to  death?  And  why  should  the 
good  brute  have  nothing  different  ?  Why  should  the 
deformed  brute  do  naught  but  suffer?  And  why 
should  the  drunkard's  brute  be  beaten  and  tortured 
into  dissolution  ?  We  have  our  theory  of  these 
things  ;  and  it  reconciles  their  total  disappearance 
from  life.  And  it  does  not  impair  justice.  The  ar- 
gument from  justice  we  consider  quite  unanswerable. 
Let  us  define  what  it  is. 

B.  F.  has  gone  to  his  grave  with  a  physique  so 
perfect  that  he  has  had  a  perpetual  holiday.  There 
are  no  bands  in  his  death,  but  his  strength  is  firm. 


Reasons   in   Favor   of  Ininwrtality,  43 

He  is  not  in  trouble  as  other  men,  neither  is  he 
plagued  like  other  men.  Therefore  pride  compass- 
eth  him  about  as  a  chain  ;  violence  covereth  him  as 
a  garment.  His  eyes  stand  out  with  fatness  ;  he 
has  more  than  heart  can  wish.  Now  this  man  dies, 
and  is  buried  ;  and  there  is  another  man  who  is  just 
the  opposite.  All  day  long  has  he  been  plagued, 
and  chastened  every  moment.  Suppose  this  latter 
to  be  scrupulously  honest  ;  nay  tenderly  benevolent, 
and  scrupulously  kind  and  upright,  and  pestered  with 
the  regret  of  not  having  done  his  full  duty  to  men. 
Now  the  argument  is  this ; — that  this  good  man  with 
the  black  and  mephitic  temperament,  and  this  bad 
man,  all  joyous  and  full  of  .life,  if  they  die  so,  must 
have  an  immortality :  else  there  is  no  justice  on  the 
part  of  our  Creator. 

The  argument  is  a  sound  one. 

But  now  look  at  the  folly.  It  undertakes  to 
show  that  to  be  immortal  we  must  survive  the  sepul- 
chre. That  is  ;  a  glorious  judgment  is  not  enough, 
and  a  resurrection  at  the  last  day.  It  is  not  enough 
that  there  should  be  an  absolute  account,  and  that 
B.  F.  shall  confront  it  in  the  day  of  God.  It  is  not 
enough  that  there  should  be  an  absolute  forensic 
quest,  and,  after  that,  an  eternal  retribution  ;  but 
justice  must  be  satisfied  in  their  exact  thought,  viz., 
a  continuance  of  our  being  when  we  close  our 
history. 

I  say,  Here  is  no  particle  of  proof.  Justice  is 
justice.  Justice  may  be  done  at  last,  just  as  well  as 
in  the  beginning.  Justice  has  waited  long  periods 
of  years.     And  though  justice  is  a  capital  proof  that 


44  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

the  soul  will  be  immortal,  it  is  no  proof  that  it  is  im- 
mortal now  ;  or  that  it  must  begin  its  recompenses 
as  a  floating  spirit. 

VII.  Yes,  says  our  unconvinced  antagonist;  for 
now,  as  our  seventh  consideration,  justice  is  not  jus- 
tice unless  there  is  a  continuance  of  being.  If  life 
actually  goes  out,  and  the  man  has  lapsed  for  thou- 
sands of  years,  where  is  the  equity  of  bringing  up  an- 
other man?  The  judgment-day  creation  is  actually 
fresh.  There  is  no  soul ;  in  fact  there  is  no  body ; 
but  a  few  particles  resting  in  the  grave.  Indeed  it 
is  doubtful  whether  the  Great  Builder  will  go  back 
even  for  them.  The  man  who  lived  and  acted  has 
passed  out  of  existence,  and  there  is  no  pretence  of 
his  being,  except  in  the  Rolls  of  Court  and  the  ac- 
counts of  the  final  judgment.  If  the  man  does  not 
exist,  then  the  judgment-man  will  be  a  new  exist- 
ence ;  and  where  is  the  justice  of  seizing  Jiim  under 
the  judgment  of  the  Great  Day? 

I  ask.  Where  is  the  justice  of  punishing  me  after 
the  unconscious  sleep  of  yesternight  ?  One  day  is 
with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years  ;  and  an  utter 
unconsciousness  is  as  bad  in  foro  jiidicice  as  a  break 
in  being.  Where  is  the  virtue  of  my  brute  particles 
that  they  should  keep  me  responsible  over  night, 
and  deliver  me  with  required  identity  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  morning  ?  These  are  puerile  difficulties. 
Moreover  there  are  much  heavier  ones.  If  lapse  of 
time  make  against  justice,  what  of  the  infant  of  to- 
day responsible  for  the  sin  in  Eden?  If  the  Crea- 
tionist account  is  to  be  respected,  that  each  infant 
soul    is  newly  brought    into    being,  where    is    the 


Reasons   in   Favor   of  Iinmortality.  45 

justice  of  tliat  soul  being  guilty  for  federated  guilt, — • 
and  I  not  for  my  own,  because  dead  for  some  thou- 
sands of  years? 

I  live  by  the  Almighty.  If  He  relaxes  when  I 
come  to  my  burial,  and  "  takes  to  Himself  His  spirit 
and  His  breath"  (Jobxxxiv  :  14,  15),  what  difference 
does  it  make,  if  He  breathes  on  again  at  the  sound 
of  the  Trumpet,  and  wakes  the  same  life  after  buried 
years  ? 

VHI.  But,  says  the  opponent,  it  will  lessen  the 
terror  of  death.  On  the  contrary  ! — A  lady,  walking 
in  her  house,  is  struck  by  a  part  of  a  cornice,  and  is 
carried  stunned  to  her  bed.  She  was  just  giving 
an  order  to  a  servant  to  bring  her  some  sugar. 
Her  skull  is  dented  in  upon  her  brain,  and  she  lies 
unconscious  for  two  weeks.  At  the  end  of  that 
time  the  difficulty  is  discovered,  and  she  is  suddenly 
restored  to  life.  The  sight  of  the  girl  seems  to  con- 
tinue her  unbroken  consciousness,  and  she  repeats 
her  order,  "  Mary,  bring  me  the  sugar  !  " 

Now  this  settles  the  preaching  difficulty.  Once 
let  it  become  sure,  that  the  soul  does  not  survive  the 
body;  and  let  it  become  familiarly  the  belief  that 
the  whole  man  reappears  at  judgment, — and  the  in- 
terval between  will  give  no  difficulty.  .  Between  death 
and  judgment  there  is  positively  no  consciousness. 
The  stride  may  be  a  millennium  of  centuries:  to  me 
it  will  be  nothing.  What  use  for  a  disembodied 
state,  if  I  lie  down  to-night  upon  my  bed,  and  in  an 
instant,  seemingly,  ascend  to  judgment  ? 

IX.  But  it  may  be  urged,  atheists  will  take  heart. 
Say  what  we  will   of  a   resurrection   at  last,  infidels 


4^  Immortality   not   m  Reason. 

will  have  their  foot   upon  us.     Once  dismiss  sinners 


\v 


holly  out  of  life,  and  men  will  take  the  risk  of  being 
brought  into  it  again. 

And  this  really,  it  will  be  urged,  is  the  dangerous 
aspect  of  the  innovation.  When  reason  wrote  over 
a  necropolis,  "  Death  is  an  eternal  sleep,"  she  used 
essentially  the  same  arguments  that  we  have  set  up. 
And  men  will  shudder.  They  will  say.  Is  there  to 
be  no  rest?  If  immortality  is  unseated,  then  Scrip- 
ture !  then  Jesus  !  nay,  a  resurrection  at  all !  What 
may  not  be  unsettled?  And  if  a  man  entirely  dies, 
and  his  existence  is  ashes  of  the  tomb,  then  skeptics 
who  have  carried  their  notions  thus  far,  will  easily 
trample  the  last  remaining  legend. 

Now  I  grant  all  this:  and  I  shiver  myself  lest 
perchance  I  am  doing  mischief.  But  the  like  was 
menaced  when  Galileo  upset  the  universe.  Is  it  not 
true  that  the  actual  ought  to  conquer?  If  it  be  so, 
that  immortality  is  a  dream  of  Pagans,  and  that  it  is 
the  revelation  of  the  word  of  God  that  we  die  and 
are  raised  again,  is  not  the-offence  the  fault  of  the 
original  heretic  ?  I  confess  that  scandal  is  created. 
And  if  any  one  asks  eagerly.  What  uprooting  will  be 
next?  I  am  unable  to  answer.  But  if  it  be  a  just 
uprooting,  who  dares  say,  It  is  a  mistake  ?  Heavenly 
truth  is  not  to  be  kept  in  countenance  by  mouldy 
error.  And  if  it  is  a  false  uprooting,  men  deserve  it. 
In  every  age  truth  has  suffered  when  hoary  errors  have 
come  thundering  to  the  ground.  But  who  will  say, 
Keep  the  errors  that  we  may  save  the  truth  ?  Count 
over  the  follies  of  the  past;  the  right  to  persecute; 
the  divinity  that   hedges  the  throne  of  kings  ;  the 


Reasons   Agaiiist   Innnortality.  47 

astronomic  blunders  of  the  church  ;  or  the  geologic 
errors  with  which  this  century  began  ;  and  who  will 
say,  Better  keep  all  these  than  disturb  religion?  or 
who  would  hesitate  himself  to  overthow  such  things 
as  these,  even  though  he  knew  it  would  be  followed 
by  disorder  in  more  genuine  believing? 

These  are  the  arguments  therefore,  that  are  to 
be  given  for  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  There  is  no 
charm  in  them.  There  is  no  ghostly  privilege  that  is 
to  hem  them  about  as  though  they  were  a  particle 
more  venerable  than  the  mind  concedes.  They  are 
to  be  tried  as  one  lawyer  tries  another  when  he  ap- 
pears in  court.  And  as  they  are  in  a  very  heavy  case, 
they  are  to  be  better  arguments  than  the  most  (a 
thing  which  seems  to  be  forgotten),  and  are  to  have 
just  that  attribute  of  precision  and  force  of  which 
all  these  seem  to  be  strangely  destitute. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Reasons  Against  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 

I.  The  first  reason  against  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  is,  that  immortality,  properly  so  called,  it  cannot 
possibly  have.  Immortality  properly  so  called  is 
deathlessness,  and  it  belongs  solely  to  the  Almighty 
(i  Tim.  vi :  16).  Immortality  properly  so  called  would 
make  a  man  so  imperishably  one,  and  so  defiantly 
self-sustained,  that  he  would  live  on  forever  without 
the  Almighty. 

Now  the  most  determined  advocates  of  our  being 
immortal  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  we  are  not  de- 


48  Immortality   not    in   Reason. 

pendent  upon  the  Most  High.  There  may  be  infidei 
naturaUsts  that  may  make  us  eternal  ;  or  Spinozists 
that  may  trace  us  back  to  the  everlasting  ;  but  square 
rehgionists  there  are  none  who  do  not  say  that  we 
live  in  the  Almighty  (Acts  xvii :  28) ;  and  who  do 
not  hold  that,  along  with  an  immortal  hope,  we  must 
have  a  concurring  Power,  else  we  would  vanish  any 
moment  under  entire  annihilation.  Then  we  are  not 
properly  immortal  in  any  manner.  Then  it  is  a  ques- 
tion of  Will..  The  most  pious  maintainer  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  will  confess  that  we  are  not  im- 
mortal in  ourselves,  but  that  it  is  a  mere  inquiry  as 
to  the  will  of  the  Almighty. 

It  is  true  there  is  an  immortality  second  to  the 
very  highest,  and  the  idea  may  be  urged  that  this  is 
all  that  is  necessary  in  the  instance  of  our  race. 
There  is  an  imperishableness  of  matter,  for  example. 
It  is  not  absolute,  and  it  does  not  exempt  matter  from 
being  dependent  on  the  Most  High.  It  does  not 
forbid  the  thought  that  if  He  were  to  withdraw  his 
hand  it  would  be  annihilated.  And  yet  practically 
it  does  not  forbid  the  thought  that  it  is  imperishable. 
There  is  the  same  sum  of  matter  now,  say  the  learned, 
that  there  was  in  the  beginning,  and  by  the  conser- 
vation of  forces  all  will  continue  to  exist  through  the 
myriad  of  years. 

It  may  or  may  not  be  the  case;  but  grant  it; 
whether  it  may  or  not,  it  only  may  by  the  will  of  the 
Almighty. 

And  turn  the  question  as  we  may,  we  come  back 
at  last  to  Scripture.  If  we  resort  to  reason,  it  is  as 
to  the  analogy  of  God's  will.     If  we  continue  to  think 


Reasons   AgaiJist   IniDioj'tality.  49 

after  death,  it  nuist  be  because  God  wills  it.  And  if 
lie  wills  it,  it  must  be  for  some  final  cause.  Now  I 
can  see  the  final  cause  for  matter.  Derange  it,  and 
you  derange  the  cosmos.  Diminish  its  volume,  and 
you  leave  me  nothing  on  which  I  can  rely.  But  I  can 
see  no  such  cause  as  to  mind.  Continue  that,  and 
you  bewilder  me  with  difficulty.  The  snail  and  the 
stork  and  the  elephant  must  all  keep  continuously  on, 
and  in  the  increment  of  life  must  submerge  rather 
than  uphold  the  cosmos. 

The  sole  question  however  is,  as  to  the  will  of  the 
Almighty. 

II.  And  our  second  argument  shall  be  as  to  the 
analogy  of  that  will. 

Rehearsing  what  we  have  long  ago  declared,  life 
when  it  goes  out  of  the  animal  and  the  plant,  goes 
out  altogether.  There  is  no  soul  of  the  cabbage  or 
of  the  oak.  If  there  be  a  soul  of  the  lion,  men  ought 
to  be  willing  to  declare  it.  But  if  it  be  the  prevalent 
opinion  of  believers  that  souls  are  the  appanage  of 
man,  then  the  analogy  of  brutes  should  be  confessed, 
and  it  should  be  admitted  as  a  region  of  difficulty  in 
respect  to  the  whole  opinion. 

Men  should  deal  fairly  too  in  respect  to  our 
own  analogies.  The  whole  courses  of  our  lives  pro- 
claim our  dependence  on  the  body.  We  are  weak 
in  infancy.  Our  thoughts  are  feeble  and  small  when 
our  bodies  are.  All  through  life  we  have  just  as  much 
thought  as  we  have  action  in  our  brain.  If  a  blow 
stun  us,  we  sleep.  If  sickness  steal  our  faculty,  it 
slackens  and  grows  dim.  If  age  deaden,  we  are  em- 
bruted  that  much.  Death  puts  a  crown  to  the  anal- 
3 


50  Innnortality   ?wt   in   Reason. 

ogy.  And  unless  thought  actually  flashes  up  by 
some  bold  manoeuvre  of  the  blood  by  which  it  ralHes 
in  its  citadel,  it  is  diminished  as  life  is;  and  makes  a 
sort  of  chicane  of  helplessness,  if  it  springs  into 
strength  at  the  acme  of  most  apparent  impotence. 

Analogy,  therefore,  most  distinctly  teaches  that 
it  is  the  will  of  our  Maker  that  our  mind  should 
perish  with  the  body. 

But  mark  a  difficulty.  What  might  seem  to  be  an 
overwhelming  triumph  is  lessened,  we  are  willing  to 
admit,  by  a  peculiar  appeal.  Analogy  it  miight  be 
frankly  confessed  would  be  almost  perfect  ;  but  then 
how  much  remains  of  it  when  we  have  admitted  one 
grand  and  wonderful  exception?  Plants  die,  and 
brutes  die,  and  so  we  might  seem  to  leap  to  the  con- 
clusion man  dies.  But  then  it  seems  that  in  every 
important  way  man  does  not  die.  What  is  there 
worth  in  the  analogy  if  it  is  admitted  that  man  is  an 
exception  after  all?  It  is  proclaimed  that  justly  we 
must  live  again.  It  is  confessed  that  we  shall  live 
immortal  after  a  final  day.  What  is  left  of  the  anal- 
ogy, therefore  ?  In  other  words,  if  man  is  a  great  ex- 
ception to  the  brutes,  why  plead  the  instance  of  the 
brutes  as  any  check  to  his  being  an  entire  immortal  ? 

Now  this  would  do  grandly  if  there  were  any 
proof  that  he  was,  drawn  from  God's  holy  word. 
The  fact  of  a  resurrection  would  shed  a  great  light 
on  man  that  would  justify  a  faith  in  any  cognate 
wonder.  But  surely  it  could  not  originate  it.  The 
failure  of  an  analogy  in  one  respect  would  be  a  queer 
proof  ab  origine  that  it  must  fail  in  another.  The 
doctrine  that  man  must  rise  might  be  an  argument 


Reasons   Against   Imniortality.  51 

that  brutes  must  rise,  or  that  plants  might  Hvc  again 
in  the  garden  of  the  blest  ;  but  we  do  protest  against 
an  analogy  that  would  declare  that  because  man 
must  rise  by  miracle  under  the  archangel's  trump — 
that  therefore  he  must  never  have  gone  into  the 
grave,  or  that  his  spirit  at  least  has  lived  immortal. 

III.  Therefore  we  advance  boldly  to  a  third 
point.  While  we  admit  that  man  is  a  great  excep- 
tion, and  that  his  being  raised  to  immortality  at  the 
last  puts  a  great  gulf  of  dissimilarity  between  him 
and  the  brute  creation  :  while  his  grafting  into 
Christ  and  his  entitlement  as  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
makes  it  almost  profane  to  think  of  him  as  dying 
hke  the  ox  and  ass, — yet  in  the  rush  of  such  grand 
conceptions,  it  is  not  necessary  that  there  should 
follow  all  manner  of  possible  conceits.  It  is  quietly 
said  that  we  shall  rise  again.  Unless  it  is  also  said 
that  there  shall  be  nothing  to  rise  but  the  dust  of 
the  sepulchre,  it  spoils  things  to  mix  the  exaltation 
at  the  last  with  the  imagined  idea  that  we  are  to  be 
continuously  immortal. 

But  it  will  be  said,  anything  else  makes  necessary 
a  miracle. 

Let  us  notice  where  we  stand. 

Our  third  argument  is  that  the  mortality  of  the 
soul  makes  the  simplest  eschatology. 

We  have  admitted  that  resurrection  makes  a  vast 
exception  for  our  race,  but  we  have  argued  that  that 
does  not  involve  an  original  immortality.  We  are 
now  reaching  the  argument  that  it  is  most  natural  it 
should  not,  but  that  the  simplest  eschatology  would 
follow  unconsciousness  at  death. 


52  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

But  says  the  present  difficulty,  then  there  must 
be  miracle.  Now  no  believer  in  the  Bible  disowns 
miracle  ;  but  the  real  gist  of  the  challenge  is  that  it 
must  be  constant  miracle.  The  whole  dependence 
of  a  man  for  life  must  be  that  he  shall  be  raised  up 
in  the  end  totally,  body  and  soul,  as  when  originally 
created.  If  a  man  can  live  along  ;  if  he  can  have 
some  identity  of  existence  and  continuousness  of 
life  ;  if  nature  can  be  pleaded  as  originally  designing 
him  and  unchangeably  continuing  him  in  conscious 
being,  then  he  reappears  more  naturally.  But  to  lay 
the  total  weight  of  our  immortality  upon  a  supernat- 
ural re-creation  at  the  last,  shocks  belief;  and  is  out 
of  the  province  of  miracle  ;  for  miracle  does  no  such 
permanent  feats,  but  is  only  invoked  for  rare  inter- 
ferences in  nature. 

Now  two  things  have  gotten  mixed.  The  warn- 
ing is  (i)  that  the  whole  thing  is  too  incredible,  or 
else  the  warning  is  (2)  that  there  can  be  no  perma- 
nent miracle. 

Consider  both. 

(i)  Ideas  have  moved  around  till  we  who  teach 
a  mortality  like  brutes  are  considered  fatally  credu- 
lous because  we  teach  a  total  resurrection.  That 
seems  strange.  We  might  challenge  the  reasoning 
that  is  built  simply  on  the  incredible. 

But  let  that  pass. 

We  simply  sketch  the  circumstances. 

One  theory  is  that  there  is  a  total  resurrection  at 
the  last.  We  hold  that  a  great  miracle.  The  other 
theory  is  that  there  is  a  partial  resurrection  at  the 
last.     Is  that  much  less  ?     But  then  in  addition  to 


Reasons   Against   Innnortality.  53 

this  the  arguer  for  the  soul's  immortality  preaches 
another  wonder.  He  believes  in  disembodied  exist- 
ence. That  is, — I  believe  that  I  die  just  as  I  am 
born,  totally  and  like  a  brute  (Eccl.  iii  :  19);  and 
that  the  one  great  promise  is  that  I  shall  rise  again. 
He  believes  most  that  is  wonderful  in  my  being 
raised,  and  believes  also  in  a  floating  life  different 
and  in  exile  from  the  body.  Which  believes  the 
most?  And  which,  if  both  doctrines  were  stated 
now  for  the  first,  would  he  fight  against  with  the 
most  doubt,  and  get  his  mind  to  grasp  and  cover 
with  the  higher  conviction  of  helplessness? 

We  believe  most  baldly  that  if  we  are  to  live 
again,  as  we  confidently  believe  we  are,  we  can  get 
our  eschatological  conceit  most  easily  through  a  re- 
storation at  the  last,  rather  than  through  two 
strange  wanderings,  the  wandering  of  thought  al- 
together away  from  its  base,  and  the  wandering  of  it 
back  to  reclaim  and  vivify  what  is  mortal. 

(2)  Then  as  to  miracle.  The  difficulty  pretended 
is,  that  it  would  be  permanent  miracle.  But  pray 
what  was  our  creation  at  the  beginning?  The  diffi- 
culty is  that  it  is  making  miracle  not  casual  but  by 
law.  A  whole  race  are  to  come  back  to  life,  both 
wicked  and  just,  under  the  supernatural.  But  men 
forget!  How  did  we  all  come  to  life?  Arid  where 
is  there  anything  more  permanently  supernatural  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  whole,  than  in  the  creation  of 
the  whole  originally?  And  then  further;  how  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  a  whit  less  chronically  miracle 
than  the  resurrection  of  the  whole  man,  body  and 
soul,  at  the  judgment  of  the  last  day  ? 


54  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

IV.  Besides  ;  the  analogy  of  the  universe ! — we 
are  greatly  assisted  by  that.  The  wandering  of  dis- 
embodied mind,  and  that  the  dead  should  go  on  to 
think  ! — that  is  out  of  the  line  of  the  universal  cosmos. 
But  that,  like  the  sowing  of  the  dragon's  teeth,  there 
should  spring  up  a  whole  harvest  of  inhabitants, — 
that  has  the  prestige  of  the  past.  I  mean  by  that, 
earth  bears  marks  of  having  been  peopled  again  and 
again.  If  she  is  to  be  again  destroyed  ;  if  the  heav- 
ens being  on  fire  are  to  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements 
to  melt  with  fervent  heat,  and  then  we,  according  to 
His  promise,  are  to  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth  (2  Pet.  iii :  13),  it  is  in  the  analogy  of  the  past 
that  the  earth  should  people  itself  at  a  stroke  :  ^  and 
that  it  should  people  itself  with  man,  I  mean  call  up 
the  millions  of  the  past,  is  all  that  is  special  in  the 
thing  to  be  supposed.  Earth,  having  been  peopled 
often  before,  I  mean  with  animals,  is  now  repeopled 
with  man  ;  man  having  been  formed  on  it  as  one 
pair  by  the  miracle  of  the  past,  and  now  rr-formed  ; 
all  his  buried  millions  lifted  back  into  existence  ;  a 
beautiful  planet  re-covered  with  homes  ;  not  now  as 
in  the  common  instance  of  creatures  for  the  first 
time  created,  but  of  the  just  preceding  race  ;  a  people 
degenerate  by  sin,  but  some  re-generate  ;  all  of  them 
to  be  brought  back  again  to  life,  and  some  of  them 
to  be  made  gloriously  perfect,  body  and  spirit,  in  a 
Divine  Redeemer. 

1  know  not  how  it  affects  other  minds,  but  when 
I  read  of  the  spectroscope, — soda  and  carbon  and  fer- 

*    1  know  this  is  denied  ;  but  I  am  willing  to  take  with  me  what 
still  remains  as  the  great  body  of  earnest  thinkers. 


Reasons   Against   Innuortality.  55 

ruginous  vapors  and  hydrogen  and  other  terrestrial 
matters  seem  messengers  to  me  from  other  stars. 
They  speak  of  universal  body,  just  as  loudly  to  my 
ear  as  anything  ever  spoke  of  universal  mind.  It 
may  be  fancy  ;  but  they  beckon  to  me  as  from  other 
seats.  I  see  a  universe  ;  of  some  spirits  perhaps,  as 
of  angels  and  principalities  of  a  ministering  race  ; 
but  of  great  worlds  of  men,  with  phosphorus  in  their 
brains,  like  Newton  and  like  Locke  ;  and,  like  Newton 
when  he  rises  from  his  grave,  men  with  weight  upon 
their  feet,  and  with  light  upon  their  eyes,  and  food 
upon  every  bough  to  repair  the  exhaustion  of  their 
living  ;  men  who  have  never  seen  corruption  (Acts 
xiii  :  37;  Rom.  viii :  21)  like  us,  but  who  have  es- 
caped it  by  holy  living  ;  yet  who  are  nevertheless 
models  of  embodied  life  ;  rather  than  of  that  floating 
immortality  which  we  are  looking  for  after  our  disso- 
lution. At  least,  this  much  we  teach ; — that  the 
analogies  of  our  own  planet  lead  us  to  think  that  its 
whole  repeopling  (the  wicked  having  been  sent  some- 
where else)  will  be  by  sinners  newly  raised,  their 
whole  life  brought  up  at  once  from  the  sepulchre, 
the  race  as  a  race  created  as  much  as  if  it  were  a  new 
race,  like  any  new  fauna  for  a  resurrected  province  ; 
and  that  the  only  difference  from  the  past  is,  that  in 
this  instance  it  is  not  a  new  race,  but  one  kept  reck- 
oned for  in  the  rolls  of  court  ;  with  a  life  hid  with 
Christ  in  God  (Col.  iii :  3 ) ;  brought  back  to  con- 
scious memory  of  their  acts  ;  and  brought  up  a^s  act- 
ually the  same  as  if  they  had  been  sleeping  but  two 
minutes  in  their  sepulchre. 

Our  fourth  reason  therefore,  is,  that  a  total  plant- 


56  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

ing  of  a  race,  I  mean  of  body  and  soul  at  once,  and 
that  probably  as  the  history  of  other  planets,  is  the 
analogy  of  the  cosmos  ;  with  the  exception  that  in 
this  instance  of  man,  there  is  the  metempsychosis 
across  the  centuries  of  a  lost  but  remembered  being. 

V.  Now  the  last  reason  !  We  rejoice  that  the 
soul  is  mortal  because  it  is  the  more  solemn  way  to 
preach  salvation  to  the  perishing. 

By  the  old  plan  I  told  men  that  they  would  be 
disembodied.  How  long  was  that  to  last  ?  Why 
possibly  for  ages.  Well,  what  are  we  to  suffer 
there?  Remorse.  Well  what  is  remorse  ?  For  my 
part  I  do  not  believe  that  the  ungodly  man  can  be 
brought  to  tremble  before  psychical  suffering. 
Then  whereto  serves  immortality?  For  our  part 
we  boldly  declare  that  it  breaks  the  fall  that  the 
impenitent  is  inclined  to  hazard.  But  tell  a  man 
that  he  is  dust.  Tell  him  that  he  will  rise  again. 
Tell  him  that  it  may  be  to-morrow.  Convince  him, 
as  you  easily  may,  that  though  it  be  after  millenni- 
ums, yet  to  him  it  will  be  at  once ;  and  you  bring 
upon  his  soul  all  the  weight  of  an  immediate  \tor- 
ment.  Tell  him  that  he  will  die ;  tell  him  that  he 
will  be  buried  ;  tell  him  that  his  soul  will  live  ;  tell 
him  it  will  float  iu  some  dark  Gehenna ;  tell  him  ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine  that  it  will  be  without  the 
body,  and  without  corporeal  pain, — and  he  will  in- 
crease his  ventures.  The  longer  you  count  the 
period,  the  better  he  will  be  pleased  with  this  idea 
of  disembodied  perdition. 

It  is  true  it  may  be  an  evil  to  unseat  this  doc- 
trine of  immortality  ;  just  as  it  is  an  evil  to  unseat 


A    Providence   in   the   Discussion.  57 

any  doctrine  that  has  reigned  supreme,  and  that  has 
struck  its  roots  far  into  the  thinking  of  mankind. 
Moreover  it  may  have  answered  an  end,  just  as  one 
error  bakmces  another,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  next 
chapter.  But  this  end  it  is  for  God  to  aim  at,  not 
man.  We  have  no  right  to  play  at  bowls  with 
the  errors  of  the  church.  The  times  of  ignorance 
God  winks  at  (Acts  xvii  :  30)  ;  or,  to  correct  a  very 
wicked  translation,  God  overlooks  or  oversees. 
God  watches  error  to  observe  its  exigent  times. 
And  we  verily  believe  the  knell  has  tolled  for  im- 
mortality. This  grave  mistake  can  no  longer  pre- 
vent a  graver.  And  to  teach  men  now  that  they 
entirely  die,  and  that  when  they  rise  from  the  dead 
they  entirely  rise  ;  and  that  if  millions  of  ages  pass 
it  will  be  to  them  unconscious, — bids  fair  to  be  the 
higher  method  of  alarm  ;  for  millions  of  ages  disem- 
bodied they  might  be  inclined  to  risk,  but  immedi- 
ate torment  they  shrink  from  as  inflicted  in  the  body. 

CHAPTER    IV. 
A  Providence  in  this  Discussion. 

We  do  not  pretend  to  imagine  that  God  could 
create  error.  "  He  is  the  Father  of  lights  "  (Jas.  i : 
17),  "  and  in  him  is  no  darkness  at  all"  (i  Jo.  i :  5). 
It  is  dangerous  to  talk  in  any  way  different  from  this. 
"  Let  no  man  say,  when  he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted 
of  God  ;  for  God  cannot  be  tempted  of  evil,  neither 
tempteth  He  any  man  "  (Jas.  i :   13). 

Yet,  though  God  could  not  engender  the  idea  of 
immortality  if  it  were  not  true, — yet  He  could  per- 

3* 


58.  Iimnortality   not   in   Reason. 

mit  it  to  continue,  if  thereby  he  could  rein  in  other 
foUies  more  dangerous  to  man.  God  did  not  create 
the  folly  that  salvation  was  of  the  Jews  ;  I  mean, 
ritualistically,  and  by  the  blood  of  Abraham.  Christ 
did  not  create  the  folly  of  a  temporal  reign.  We  see 
how  by  both  these  mistakes  the  Jews  and  Christ's 
earliest  disciples  could  be  rallied  and  kept  together. 
God  did  not  teach  the  divinity  of  kings.  Christ  did 
not  order  religious  persecution.  And  so  the  power 
of  the  Pope,  and  absolution  by  the  priests,  and  infalli- 
bility of  the  church  (like  the  union  of  Church  and 
State,  and  like  State  education  in  our  day),  have  been 
made  in  dark  ages,  like  a  hard  bridle  upon  a  horse, 
to  stifle  with  forged  claims  more  brutal  and  more 
dangerous  heresies. 

But  the  time  comes  for  a  release. 

Now  I  can  see,  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  im^ 
mortality, — men  were  brutish.  It  might  suit  half 
civilized  children  to  imagine  ghosts;  for  men  might 
**  err,  not  knowing  the  Scripture  and  the  power  of 
God."  But  let  the  whole  world  awaken  ;  let  the 
true  relation  of  God  to  the  cosmos  be  distinctly 
understood  ;  let  the  light  that  modern  science  sheds 
upon  the  text  *'  In  himi  we  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being  "  (Acts  xvii :  28),  enter  and  prevail,  and  we 
can  see  that  ghosts  are  not  necessary  to  transmit  our 
identity  before  the  Law  ;  that  we  can  die  to-night 
and  rise  ages  afterward,  and  yet  continue  responsi- 
bly one  ;  that  one  day  with  the  Lord  is  as  a  thousand 
years  ;  and  that  an  hour's  sleep  is  just  as  fatal  to  our 
continuing  the  same,  as  unnumbered  centuries  before 
our  resurrection. 


A    Providence    in    the   Discussion.  59 

The  man,  therefore,  in  this  period  of  the  world, 
who,  at  the  suggestion  of  Scripture,  and  in  fideh'ty 
to  its  claims,  can  overthrow  the  doctrine  of  immor- 
tality, may  be  doing  a  most  timely  service  under  the 
Providence  of  Heaven. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  he  may  be  making  better 
teachers.  Continuing  allegiance  to  the  Bible  all  the 
same,  the  man  who  can  bring  our  dying  into  analogy 
with  all  dying,  so  that  the  heart  and  lungs  of  beasts 
can  be  seen  to  stop  as  ours  do,  and  all  their  animal 
existence,  with  the  same  arrest  of  conscious  being 
(Ec.  iii :  18-21),  and  who  can  build  our  hopes  of  im- 
mortality upon  a  life  brought  to  light  in  the  Gos- 
pel, is  making  the  whole  economy  of  salvation  more 
practically  simple,  and  is  building,  as  bridge-builders 
do,  with  far  less  timber  than  in  the  old  spans,  and 
with  a  relief  of  faith  unspeakably  great  to  those  who 
observe  the  analogies  of  nature. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  he  will  make  better 
polemics. 

Pharaoh  and  his  chariots  were  so  cheaply  de- 
stroyed, because  they  had  been  led  by  Providence  so 
featly  into  the  trough  of  the  sea.  God  by  wonderful 
Providences  has  assembled  the  corruptions  of  Chris- 
tendom within  the  same  sea-walls.  Those  wretched 
abominations  for  the  dead,  purgatory  and  the  worship 
of  the  saints,  masses  and  the  multiplication  of  pray- 
ers for  our  departed  friends,  indulgences,  and  all  the 
horrid  wickedness  as  to  Mary  the  Mother  of  God, — ail 
sink  at  once  with  this  doctrine  of  immortality.  It  is  a 
glorious  overthrow.  And  if  Miriam  is  to  dance  upon 
the  rocks,  we  see  no  nobler  chance  for  it  than  after  this 


6o  Immortality   not    in   Reason, 

very  history  of  ours,  where  God  has  borne  with  Anti- 
Christ,  and  hardened  the  Popish  heart,  and  gathered 
its  main  conceits  into  this  narrow  bottom  beyond  the 
grave,  and  then  buried  all  at  a  blow  by  filling  up  the 
bed  itself  under  the  gulfing  waters. 

There  is  no  life  in  Hades  in  which  Mary  can  ap- 
pear. And  then  masses  for  the  unreturning  lost, 
and  alms  gifts,  and  invocations,  have  all  been  wasted 
upon  myths  ;  and,  what  is  now  very  timely,  the  in- 
faUibility  which  has  been  just  decreed,  cuts  off  the 
retreat  of  Rome,  and  gives  its  assembled  multitude 
an  entire  overthrow. 

3.  And  so  of  the  heathen  field.  A  recanting  of 
our  ideas  of  immortality  makes  men  not  only  better 
teachers,  and  better  polemics,  but  it  makes  them,  let 
me  say  also  in  the  third  place,  better  missionaries. 

Immortality,  we  verily  believe,  is  a  Pagan  myth. 
The  systems  we  oppose  are  therefore  all  full  of  wan- 
dering spirits.  Legends  of  the  past  crowd  on  us  pic- 
tures of  continual  Transmigration.  We  are  to  cut 
up  such  systems.  How  can  we  do  it  better  than  by 
one  clear  message  of  a  blessed  resurrection?  Paul 
accentuates  this.  And  not  only  does  he  exaggerate 
our  rising,  beyond  what  we  could  conceive  as  natural 
if  it  were  the  mere  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  he 
is  eternally  harping  upon  "  tJiat  day!'  Every  thing 
is  to  happen  on  ''  that  day."  And,  in  a  way  that 
would  be  utterly  unnatural  if  it  were  the  mere  date 
of  the  rising  of  the  body,  he  makes  it  the  great  day 
of  redemption  itself,  and  seals  the  spirit  for  it  as 
though  that  were  the  day  of  universal  restoration. 
We  can  make  the  best  missionaries  therefore,  on  this 
pica  that  we  are  mortal. 


A    Providence  in   tJie   Discussion.  6 1 

4.  And  lastly,  the  best  philosophers. 

Savants  are  undoubtedly  worsting  this  pretence 
of  spirits.  They  are  very  wicked  :  and  many  of  them 
are  ghastly  atheists  ;  at  least  they  are  attempting  to 
believe  that  there  is  no  personal  account,  and  no 
personal  judge  to  hold  those  terrible  Assizes  beyond 
the  grave.  We  know  that  we  are  in  wretched  com- 
pany, till  Christians  join  us,  so  long  as  we  teach  the 
doctrine  that  the  soul  is  not  immortal. 

And  yet,  as  all  reasoning  from  nature  is  built  on 
a  system  of  what  is  like,  it  is  not  likely — and  philos- 
ophers are  making  this  incontestably  to  appear — 
that  there  is  a  soul,  separate  from  the  body,  that 
can  go  on,  in  analogy  with  facts,  to  thought  and 
reason  after  we  are  laid  in  the  sepulchre. 

We  have  taken  pains  to  say.  This  is  not  certi- 
tude ;  but  it  fixes  an  analogy :  and  this  analogy  is 
ever  growing.  It  is  burrowing  nearer  the  seat  of 
life.  In  ways  that  are  vital  in  other  search,  the  phos- 
phorus is  tracing  itself  right  up  to  thought  ;  and  the 
cellular  decay  to  exertion  in  its  mental  part  ;  till  we 
can  only  say  this  : — You  have  proved  your  position 
subject  to  appeal.  You  have  settled  the  cosm'ical 
proof,  viz.,  the  analogy  of  fact.  We  can  overrule  you 
by  the  Bible.  You  are  decidedly  the  best  philoso- 
phers, and  I  who  follow  you  am  the  best  theologian 
thereby,  unless  we  are  overthrown  by  Scripture. 
There  are  higher  analogies,  that  leave  with  Scrip- 
ture the  final  appeal  But  if  Scripture  itself  suggests 
our  being  mortal,  then  the  game  is  up.  He  is  the 
best  philosopher  for  Christ  who  catches  the  indica- 
tions of  the  times,  and  brings  the  dicta  of  the  Word 


62  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

into  the  earliest  consistence  with  God's  Providence 
in  the  discoveries  of  science. 

Our  next  step,  therefore,  is  into  the  citadel. 

But  one  word  now  ! 

Men  will  say.  We  object.  The  whole  thing  is  a 
chicane.  The  Bible  is  a  nose  of  wax.  Free  thought 
has  had  great  triumphs,  and  has  fairly  upset  the  po- 
sitions of  the  word  of  God  ;  and  priests  have  patched 
up  the  break.  This  is  what  you  are  now  bent  to  do. 
We  unsettled  Job  and  Isaiah,  and  Galileo  showed 
the  monks  that  the  earth  moved  round  the  sun. 
The  gravest  exegetes  silenced  us  by  the  Holy  Word. 
And  yet  when  we  broke  our  path,  and  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  Popes  was  carried  down  by  the  inevita- 
blenesses  of  Science,  presto,  there  was  a  shuffle  of 
the  text.  The  oracle  now  told  no  such  tiling  ! 
And  it  has  been  repeated  as  to  the  age  of  the 
planet.  The  Bible  now  is  at  one  with  the  geolo- 
gists. Give  the  Doctors  time,  infidels  declare,  and 
Lyell  and  Darwin  and  Huxley  and  the  very  demon- 
strations of  sight  may  break  down  the  old  wall  of 
Scripture  ;  and  a  new  wall  is  there  behind  it.  There- 
fore it  is  of  no  use.  The  ghostly  hierarchy  maintains 
its  place  as  by  a  new  revelation.  One  word  now 
before  we  proceed,  and  our  enemies  themselves  shall 
judge. 

I  beg  to  know  whether  this  is  a  fair  view  scien- 
tifically considered.  I  beg  to  know  whether  the  Bible 
ever  did  teach  that  the  sun  rose  and  set.  I  beg 
to  know  whether  it  did  not  hint  the  contrary  (Job 
xxvi :  7)  before  moderns  found  it  out.  I  beg  to  know 
whether  the  way  we  searched  our  Bibles  was  not  as 


A    Providence   in   the   Discussion.  6t^ 

these  men  searched  nature,  stupidly  and  ill ;  and 
whether  the  fault  was  not  with  Science  that  they 
did  not  post  the  world  quicker,  and  through  it  the 
Popes,  with  the  true  way  to  read  and  understand 
the  blessed  revelation.  I  beg  to  know  it :  and  also 
more, — whether  the  Bible  ever  did  teach  the  new- 
ness of  our  planet  :  whether  when  Doctors  said  so, 
they  were  not  mistaken  ;  whether  the  very  first  text 
of  Moses  does  not  throw  creation  back  unmeasurable 
depths  ;  whether  the  Chaos  of  the  second  verse  has 
any  scriptural  date  ;  whether  the  texts  that  follow 
have  found  any  geology  so  agreed  on  and  explained 
as  would  carry  a  case  against  them  of  any  judicial 
strength  ;  and  whether  the  whole  fight  with  Science 
has  not  given  Scripture  some  of  its  very  finest 
proofs,  and  could  at  all  be  spared  from  the  very  first 
chamber  of  exoteric  evidences. 

If  this  be  so,  come  on  with  us  again.  We  are 
going  again  into  one  of  these  escapades  of  Revela- 
tion. She  can  afford  to  have  them.  The  church 
has  stoutly  asserted  immortality.  Free  thought  has 
chased  it,  as  it  thinks,  by  glass  and  scalpel  out  of 
the  range  of  possible  subsistence.  It  thunders  away 
at  the  wall  of  Scripture.  And  we  are  beginning  to 
believe  that  there  will  happen  again  the  old  experi- 
ence,— that  just  as  the  rams'  horns  (less  blessed  than 
those  of  Joshua)  have  blown  their  last  blast,  and  the 
shout  has  gone  up,  and  the  wall  of  the  beleaguered 
city  has  fallen  to  the  ground,  another,  better  wall  will 
be  seen  behind  it,  and  the  Bible  be  found  disowning 
the  first,  and  showing  its  unaltered  page  to  prove 
that  it  never  built  it. 


III. 

THE    IMMORTALITY   OF    THE  SOUL    NOT 
IN  SCRIPTURE. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Can  Scripture  be  Uxmistakable? 

If  Scripture  afford  us  a  direct  text  in  favor  of  a 
doctrine,  we  cannot  trust  it.  This  arises  from  the 
infirmities  of  language.  If  it  says,  "  This  is  my 
body,"  it  is  in  favor  of  transubstantiation  :  if  it  says, 
"  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,"  it  adds 
proof  further:  but  such  are  the  hberties  of  speech, 
that  we  cannot  take  such  texts  out  of  the  category 
of  an  engaging  rhetoric,  until  we  find  them  braced 
up  and  warrantably  supported  by  all  the  analogy  of 
the  words  of  Scripture. 

When,  therefore,  the  Bible  says,  **  Baptism  doth 
now  save  us  ;  "  or  when  it  says,  ''  Ye  ought  also  to 
wash  one  another's  feet  ;  "  or  when  it  says,  ''  Salute 
one  another  with  a  holy  kiss;"  *' Rise  and  wash 
away  thy  sins ;  "  "  Lest  I  myself  become  a  cast 
away ;  "  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  re- 
mitted ;  "  or  *'  whatsoever  ye  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven," — we  are  not  to  run  off  at  once  and 
pronounce  gravely  what  each  of  these  texts  seem  to 
teach,  but  wait  till  we    have  compared.     1    cannot 


Can    Scripture   be    Unmistakable?  65 

take  the  text,   "  In  that  very  day  his  thoughts  per- 
ish," and  deny  the  doctrine  of  immortahty  on  the 
faith  of  that  single  passage. 
But  what  dare  I  do  ? 

Here  is  an  Indian  box.  It  is  built  of  bark.  I  wish 
to  fit  on  the  cover.  It  is  built  of  striped  bark  ;  and 
if  I  take  the  lid  and  fit  it  on  in  a  certain  fashion,  I 
can  know  that  I  am  doing  right  if  all  the  stripes 
beautifully  and  simply  and  in  a  perfect  way  agree. 
That  is  what  I  would  call  fitting  it  unmistakably. 
But  if  I  take  it  off,  and  put  it  on  differently,  and 
some  of  the  stripes  refuse  to  match,  I  turn  it  back 
at  once.  The  fact  that  some  of  them  tally  does  not 
satisfy  me  the  least.  The  agreement  o{  all  of  them 
if  I  fix  it  on  the  other  way,  carries  conviction  at  a 
blow;  and  I  can  perfectly  understand  why  a  few  of 
the  stripes  match  by  a  happy  accident,  or  by  any 
cause  you  choose  to  state,  when  I  set  it  differently. 

Moreover  if  a  tool  has  been  at  work  to  make  the 
lid  match  the  box  when  it  is  set  on  wrong,  it  only 
makes  it  disgust  me  the  more,  and  only  makes  me 
more  comfortably  convinced  when  I  see  it  fixed  the 
other  way  and  matched  in  every  direction. 

Now  this  is  what  I  call  making  Scripture  unmis- 
takable. Scripture  may  not  be  absolutely  unmistaka- 
ble even  then.  But  it  may  be  practically  so— if  I 
take  a  doctrine  like  immortality  and  it  practically 
won't  fit.  You  may  quote  me  a  text  or  two,  and  it 
shall  be  like  the  imagined  fitting  of  the  box.  If  I  turn 
it  round  the  other  way  and  all  the  texts  fit,  and  there 
is  an  easy  fitting  each  one  in  its  place,  the  effect 
ought  to  be  decisive.     There   is   an  easy  falling  into 


66  Immortality   not  in    Scripture. 

place  that  carries  with  it  unmistakable  evidence  that 
all  has  gone  well. 

Now  as  to  the  tool  making  it  fit,  we  see  that  in 
immortality.  The  world  has  been  steeped  in  that 
thought  hundreds  of  years.  It  tampers  with  the 
word  of  God  without  knowing  what  it  is  setting 
wrong.  We  see  this  in  all  the  translations  of  the 
Bible.  Where  the  Bible  says  '*  God  formed  man 
dust  of  the  ground  "  (Gen.  ii :  7),  it  puts  in  Italics, 
and  says,  "  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  Wliere  the  Bible  says,  **  Let  the  waters 
brincr  forth  the  movincr  creature  that  hath  a  livinsf 
soul  "  (Gen.  i  :  24),  it  relegates  the  disagreeing  stripe 
into  the  margin,  and  translates  it  *'  that  hath  life." 
Where  the  Bible  says,  "He  shall  come  at  no  dead 
soul  "(Num.  vi :  6),  it  attempts  an  honest  relief 
again,  and  translates,  *'  at  no  dead  body."  Now  this 
is  what  I  would  show  by  the  Indian  box.  The  doc- 
trine that  we  are  not  immortal  would  tally  easily 
with  all  real  language.  But  the  world  has  been  set- 
ting on  the  lid  the  wrong  fashion  ;  and  this  mark  of 
the  tool  is  one  of  the  most  striking  evidences  that 
could  at  all  be  calculated. 

Let  me  add  now  a  further  number  of  examples. 
The  Bible  says,  "  And  he  that  smiteth  the  soul  of  a 
beast  shall  make  it  good,  soul  for  soul  "  (Lev.  xxiv  : 
18).  Our  translation  has  it,  "  And  he  that  killeth  a 
beast  shall  make  it  good,  beast  for  beast."  Ecclesias- 
tes  says,  "  For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men 
befalleth  beasts  ;  even  one  thing  befalleth  them  :  as 
the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other  ;  yea  they  have  all 
one  spirit "  (Ecc.  iii :   19).     The  translation  has    it 


Can   the   Scripture   be    Umnistakablc  ?         6"/ 

**Yea  they  have  all  one  breath."  The  next  sen- 
tence is,  '*  All  go  into  one  place  :  all  are  of  the  dust  ; 
and  all  turn  to  dust  again.  Who  knoweth  a  spirit  of 
man  that  goeth  upward,  and  a  spirit  of  the  beast 
that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth  ?  "  King  James 
no  longer  translates  "  breath,"  but  gives  the  word, 
as  usual,  "■  spirit,"  though  it  is  precisely  the  same 
word  ;  but  now  puts  in  the  definite  article,  which 
gives  just  the  opposite  sense  ; — "  Who  knoweth  the 
spirit  of  man  " — as  though  there  were  such  an  es- 
sence, and  it  went  upward — "  Who  knoweth  the 
spirit  of  man  that  goeth  upward,  and  the  spirit  of 
the  beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?" 
Again,  other  instances.  The  apostle  says,  ''  Seeing 
we  have  lying  around  us  so  great  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses "  (Heb.  xii :  i).  King  James  gives  it  to  us, 
'*  Seeing  we  are  compassed  about  with  so  great  a  cloud 
of  witnesses."  The  verse  just  before  is  prejudiced 
worse.  The  original  makes  it,  *'  These  all,  having 
been  attested  by  faith,  received  not  the  promise ; 
God  on  our  account  having  looked  forward  to  the 
something  better,  that  they  without  us  should  not 
be  made  perfect  "  (Heb.  xi  :  39,  40).  King  James' 
men  quite  erase  all  that,  ''  These  all,  having  ob- 
tained a  good  report  through  faith,  received  not  the 
promise  :  God  having  provided  some  better  thing  for 
us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  per- 
fect." Once  more,  in  Leviticus,  ''  For  the  soul  of  the 
flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon 
the  altar  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls  "  (Lev. 
xvii :  1 1).  Our  version  has  it,  "  The  life  of  the  flesh 
is  in   the  blood,"  just  sponging  out  altogether  the 


6S  Immortality   not   in    Scripture, 

antithesis  of  the  beast's  soul  with  the  man's  soul. 
And  further  ; — "■  Therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  No  soul  of  you  shall  eat  blood  ;  neither  shall 
the  stranger  that  sojourneth  among  you  eat  blood. 
And  whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn  among  you, 
which  hunteth  and  catcheth  any  beast  or  fowl  that 
may  be  eaten,  he  shall  even  pour  out  the  blood 
thereof,  and  cover  it  with  dust." — Now  observe  again, 
— "  for  it  is  the  soul  of  all  flesh.  Its  blood  is  in  "^  its 
soul ;  therefore  I  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  Ye 
shall  eat  the  blood  of  no  manner  of  flesh  ;  for  the  soul 
of  all  flesh,  that  is  its  blood  ;  whosoever  eateth  it 
shall  be  cut  off"  (Lev.  vii :  12-14).  Our  English 
by  a  sort  of  instinct  turns  it  all  round  to  what  is  or- 
thodox, "  For  it  is  the  life  of  all  flesh  ;  the  blood  of 
it  is  for  the  life  thereof."  The  likening  of  every 
creature's  ''  soul "  is  utterly  sponged  out.  *'  For  the 
life  of  all  flesh  is  the  blood  thereof:  whosoever  eat- 
eth of  it  shall  be  cut  off." 

Now,  touching  with  a  light  finger  any  one  such 
apparent  prejudice,  we  are  disposed  to  lay  a  strong 
accent  upon  it  when  it  is  one  of  many.  And  when 
it  becomes  almost  a  mannerism  of  exegetes,  and  their 
work  is  full  of  this  turning  aside  of  thought,  the  proof 
becomes  overwhelming.  It  is  stronger  than  Paley's 
coincidences  in  the  Horae  Paulinae,  because,  equally 
unconscious,  it  is  greater  in  numerical  extent,  and 
recurring  with  the  punctuality  of  light  when  any 
passage  seems  unfriendly  to  immortality. 

*  Or  "  as  "  {beth  essenticE). 


Fourteenth    Chapter   of  Job.  69 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Fourteenth  Chapter  of  Job. 

Our  first  impulse  was  to  deal  with  the  elemen- 
tary evidences  of  the  Bible  ;  for  instance,  to  take 
the  words,  body,  soul  and  spirit,  and  the  phenomena 
of  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  and  see  by  a  colla- 
tion of  the  passages  whether  each  of  these  things 
seemed  to  include  all  the  man  ;  or  whether  there 
was  a  separation  of  him  under  the  names,  and  a  sep- 
aration of  him  also  under  these  destined  changes. 

We  mean  to  do  all  this  yet. 

But  we  remembered  that  such  labored  work  gives 
the  air  of  after-thought  and  special  pleading  ;  and 
that  when  it  was  done,  there  would  be  a  sense  of 
advantage  taken  ;  and  that  while  we  were  fresh,  it 
would  be  better  to  bring  forward  the  more  impor- 
tant Scriptures,  and  treat  them  in  a  more  common 
fashion  ;  that  there  might  be  no  complaint  that  we 
had  cooked  up  a  set  of  solvents  by  which  any  pas- 
sage might  be  made  nought,  and  by  which  the 
strongest  testimonies  mi^^ht  be  turned  aside  into  the 
support  of  heresy. 

We  shall  treat  five  passages  therefore  first,  two 
of  them  witnesses  for  us,  and  three  of  them  assumed 
to  be  the  other  way.  We  shall  consider  them  in 
their  simplest  sense  ;  and  keeping  religiously  away  all 
appearance  of  refining  upon  their  drift,  we  shall  show 
that  the  whole  five  match  easily  with  us  ;  and  that 
only  three  appear  to  do  so  under  the  opposing  theory. 


70  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

The  first  is  that  beautiful  passage  of  the  Book  of 
Job  so  often  read  on  occasions  of  burial.  It  is  the 
language  of  Job  himself  (Chap.  14).  ''  Man  that  is 
born  of  a  woman  is  of  few  days  and  full  of  trouble." 
Before  we  go  on  we  need  not  anticipate  a  difficulty 
about  Job  being  inspired,  or  stop  to  show  that  each 
text  is,  in  view  of  the  difficulty  that  the  prevailing 
drift  of  these  debates  was  in  many  points  mistaken. 
Our  readers  will  adjust  all  that.  The  men  that  will 
denounce  our  doctrine  are  not  those  that  will  be  dis- 
satisfied about  the  patriarch  Job.  We  will  treat 
this  beautiful  poem  as  though,  in  the  required  light, 
the  word  of  God  ;  and  will  run  the  risk  of  any  one 
rejecting  it  for  want  of  inspiration.  Now  let  us  read 
its  testimonies:  — 

*'  He  comes  forth  like  a  flower,  and  is  cut  down; 
he  moves  across  also  like  a  shadow,  and  does  not 
stand.  And  is  it  really  on  such  a  one  that  thou  dost 
open  thine  eyes?  and  wilt  thou  bring  me  into  judg- 
ment with  thee  ?  Oh  that  the  clean  might  be  put 
apart  from  the  unclean  that  they  be  not  one.  See- 
ing his  days  are  determined,  the  number  of  his 
months  are  with  thee,  thou  hast  appointed  his  bounds 
that  he  cannot  pass  ;  look  away  from  him  and  he 
will  cease,  so  as  to  rejoice  as  a  hireling  in  his  day." 
Now  this  ceasing  h  on  a  par  with  all  the  testimonies 
of  the  inspired  word  as  to  the  end  of  man.  It  is  not 
that  my  body  will  cease,  but  the  whole  man :  and 
this  testimony  is  not  a  thing  that  we  stop  to  accent- 
uate as  from  this  single  text,  but  in  all  the  Bible. 

It  is  not  the  body  that  dies,  or  is  buried,  or  rises 
again,  but  it  is  Abraham,  or  Christ.     And  in  this  sen- 


FoiirtcentJi    Chapter   of  Job.  yi 

tence  of  Job  the  ceasing  Is  peculiar.  *'  Look  away 
from  him,  and  he  will  cease."  It  is  one  of  those  pas- 
sages that  present  in  the  strongest  light  the  dynamic 
theory  of  our  being. 

But  now  comes  the  main  thought,  **  There  is  hope 
of  a  tree,  if  it  be  cut  down,  that  it  will  sprout  again, 
and  that  the  tender  branch  thereof  will  not  cease. 
Though  the  root  thereof  wax  old  in  the  earth,  and 
the  stock  thereof  die  in  the  ground  ;  yet  through  the 
scent  of  water  it  will  bud,  and  bring  forth  boughs 
like  a  plant.  But  the  strong  man  dies,  and  is  down  ; 
yea  the  common  man  gives  up  the  spirit,  and  where 
is  he  ?  The  waters  roll  up  (evaporate)  from  the  sea, 
and  the  river  wastes,  and  dries  ;  and  man  lies  down 
and  rises  not  :  TILL  THE  HEAVENS  BE  NO  MORE  THEY 
SHALL  NOT  AWAKE,  NOR  BE  RAISED  OUT  OF  THEIR 
SLEEP." 

Now  why  is  this  testimony  not  quoted  ?  The 
Bible  has  been  ransacked  for  the  other  view,  and 
slender  asseverances  insisted  upon  ;  but  this  square 
statement  seems  for  nought.  And  if  you  carry  it 
now,  as  we  suggest  it,  and  offer  it  to  some  friend, 
and  ask.  What  are  we  to  make  of  this  passage  ?  he 
will  cast  himself  at  once  upon  the  tide  of  his  precon- 
ceived opinions.  This  ceasing,  he  will  say,  is  the 
ceasing  of  the  body.  This  sleep  is  the  slumber  of 
the  body.  And  this  waking  and  being  raised  up 
when  the  heavens  are  no  more,  he  will  tell  you  with  a 
zest  that  will  be  a  solvent  for  anything  from  Scripture, 
is  the  mere  rehabilitating  of  our  ashes  from  the  grave, 
and  the  mere  incarnating  of  the  saint  after  an  age 
among  the  blessed. 


72  Immortality   not    in    Scripture. 

But  now  go  on  with  the  passage.  "■  Oh  that 
thou  wouldest  hide  me  in  the  grave,  that  thou 
wouldest  keep  me  secret  till  thy  wrath  be  passed, 
that  thou  wouldest  appoint  me  a  set  time  and  re- 
member me.  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?  " 
What  would  be  a  natural  reply  to  this,  if  it  meant  a 
death  all  over  ?  Why  certainly  that  he  would  have 
to  wait.  If  the  heavens  be  no  more  before  he  awake 
or  be  raised  out  of  his  sleep,  he  would  naturally  say 
that  he  must  lie  dead  till  he  is  called.  And  this  is 
exactly  what  he  docs  say.  "  If  a  man  die  shall  he 
live  again?  All  the  days  of  my  appointed  time  will 
I  wait,  till  my  change  come.  Thou  shalt  call,  and  I 
will  answer  thee.  Thou  wilt  pine  after  the  work  of 
thine  hands." 

We  count  this  strong  argument.  But  if  it  is 
doubted,  let  us  at  least  modestly  ask  that  it  be  one 
stripe  in  our  Indian  casket.  It  fits  solidly  and  well  ; 
and  the  rest  of  the  chapter  refers  to  second  child- 
hood. We  cannot  stop  to  sift  it,  but  it  is  very  strik- 
ing. It  is  quoted  by  Papists  for  purgatory,  but  it 
refers  to  an  old  man.  "  His  flesh  upon  him  shall 
have  pain,  and  his  soul  shall  mourn  over  itself." 
His  decay  shall  be  like  slgw  washings.  "  As  the  very 
mountain  crumbling  wastes  down,  and  the  rock 
wears  by  age  out  of  its  very  place  ;  as  the  waters 
wear  the  stones,  and  as  its  floods  carry  off  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  so  thou  destroyest  the  hope  of  man. 
Thou  bearest  perpetually  upon  him,  and  he  moves 
lower ;  thou  alterest  his  looks,  and  sendest  him 
further  down.  His  sons  grow  great,  and  he  has  no 
knowledge ;     or     grow    small,    and    he     understands 


Fiftcoith    CJiaptcr   of  First    Corinthians.       73 

nothing  about  them.     Only  his  flesh  upon  him  shall 
have  pain,  and  his  soul  shall  mourn  over  itself." 

We  must  dismiss  this  passage.  We  beg  that  it 
may  be  treated  fairly.  There  are  four  others  that 
must  be  considered  in  their  turn. 


CHAPTER   III. 

The  Fifteenth  Chapter  of  First  Corinthians. 

If  any  candid  exegete  were  asked,  what  is  the 
most  detailed  passage  in  the  word  of  God  on  the 
subject  of  the  resurrection,  he  would  probably  point 
to  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  First  Corinthians.  No- 
body can  challenge  us,  therefore,  for  choosing  that  as 
an  authority;  and,  in  doing  so,  we  have  an  instinct 
which  forbids  labored  criticism  of  any  sort,  and 
claims  as  decisive  the  inevitable  drift  of  the  apostle, 
whatever  may  be  our  difference  about  minor  diffi- 
culties. 

In  the  first  place  there  can  be  no  question  at  all 
about  the  subject  that  the  apostle  is  talking  about. 
It  is  our  rising  ;  and,  by  a  happy  fixing  of  his  sense, 
not  a  survival  of  the  soul,  but  a  resurrection  of  the 
believer,  whatever  that  means,  at  the  final  day. 
This  appears  before  he  has  finished  a  paragraph. 
*'  For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  I 
also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  he  was  buried  : 
and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the 
Scriptures  "(i  Cor.  xv :  3,  4).  This  is  his  setting  out. 
And  now  he  binds  the  chapter  to  this  beginning,  by 
4 


74  Immortality   not    in   Scripture. 

the  most  inseverable  bonds.  For  he  says,  *'  If  Christ 
be  preached  that  he  rose  from  the  dead,  how  say 
some  among  you  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the 
dead?"  A  resurrection,  therefore,  from  an  actual 
tomb,  and  on  an  actual  day,  and  of  an  actual  buried 
mortal,  is  the  resurrection  talked  of  all  through  this 
celebrated  passage.  Now  for  the  question,  Was  it 
of  the  body  merely,  or  of  the  whole  man?  We  shall 
pretermit  the  evidence  taken  from  the  general  ex- 
pressions. That  we  shall  deal  with  by  itself  (see 
future  chapters).  The  Bible  never  speaks  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  It  speaks  of  the  man  rising 
again.  This  is  one  of  the  stripes  of  the  box  that  is 
never  noticed.  Listen  to  this  very  opening  of  the 
subject  ; — "■  Now  if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose 
from  the  dead  "  (ver.  12).  Let  us  not  distract  our- 
selves however.  We  wish,  for  the  present,  only  the 
bold  and  more  sweeping  proof  that  the  apostle  has 
in  his  mind  a  resurrection  from  a  total  death  ;  and 
not  a  resurrection  of  the  body  to  rejoin  a  soul  that 
has  been  all  the  time  immortal. 

Observe  his  reasoning: — "  Then  they  also  which 
are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished"  (ver.  18). 
Again,  "If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope  in  Christ, 
we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable  "  (ver.  19).  Again, 
'*  Why  stand  we  in  jeopardy  every  hour  ?  I  protest  by 
your  rejoicing  which  I  have  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord, 
I  die  daily.  If  after  the  manner  of  men  I  have  fought 
with  beasts  at  Ephesus,  what  advantageth  it  me  if  the 
dead  rise  not  ?  "  Now  observe  this  argument  all  the 
way  along.  If  the  dead  rise  not,  those  asleep  in 
Christ  have  perished  !     Just  think  of  the  ungrateful 


Fifteenth    Chapter   of  First    CorintJiians.       75 

heresy  !  And  yet  these  are  hard  drawn  Hnes  of  argu- 
ment. Observe  them  again.  **  If  in  this  hfe  only 
we  have  hope  in  Christ !  "  Why  Paul  must  be  be- 
side himself!  According  to  our  friends,  hope  never 
vanishes.  The  soul  lives  right  on.  Paul  is  reigning 
this  very  blissful  moment ;  and  yet,  like  a  child  cry- 
ing for  the  moon,  he  has  to  remember  that  he  was  of 
all  men  most  miserable  because  he  could  not  have 
the  matter  of  the  body  ! 

Now  I  do  not  deny  for  a  moment  the  advantage 
of  such  a  having  ;  nor  do  I  challenge  the  philosophy, 
nor  the  philology,  nor  the  cosmogony,  nor  the  theo- 
logic  probabilities  of  thought,  that  make  the  body 
very  necessary  to  the  soul.  On  the  contrary  that  is 
our  great  hinging  fact.  But  we  say.  When  Paul 
sums  up,  ''  Let  us  eat  and  drink  for  to-morrow  we 
die"  (v.  32),  and  makes  that  the  alternative  of  there 
being  no  resurrection  at  the  last  ;  when  he  says,  "  If 
after  the  manner  of  men  I  have  fought  with  beasts 
at  Ephesus,  what  advantageth  it  me  \i  the  dead  rise 
not ; "  and  when  he  says,  *'  Then  they  which  are 
fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  perished," — he  is  not  think- 
ing that  they  do  *'  immediately  pass  into  glory."  If 
he  does,  he  is  the  very  heel  of  ratiocinators.  We  do 
beg  a  square  treatment  of  this  proof.  Paul  never 
could  have  believed  that  he  was  the  possessor  of 
an  immortal  spirit,  \i  he  made  in  this  life  only  his 
hope  toward  God,  and  the  alternative,  "  To-morrow 
we  die,"  if  debarred  only  of  a  bodily  resurrection. 

There  is  a  text,  "  Else  what  shall  they  do  that 
are  baptized  for  the  dead"  (v.  29).  It  would  not 
really  affect  us  logically,  no  matter  what  might  be  its 


76  Immortality   not   in   Scripttire. 

superstitious  interpretation.  Let  us  give  the  whole 
of  it.  '*  What  shall  they  do  that  are  baptized  for 
the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  Why  are  they 
then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?  "  If  it  were  an  old 
observance,  as  most  conamentators  think,  it  would 
not  decide  our  question  ;  because,  if  it  were  a  living 
friend  getting  himself  baptized  in  behalf  of  a  dead 
friend  (as  most  people  think  it  was),  for  the  reason 
that  that  dead  friend  believed  in  Christ,  and  yet  for 
some  cause  omitted  baptism, — it  would  not  show 
that  that  friend  existed  in  the  spirit,  or  was  living 
somewhere  in  a  disembodied  state,  but  would  only 
show  that  he  needed  baptism,  leaving  the  whole 
question  as  to  when  or  where,  precisely  as  it  would 
be  without  the  passage. 

But  as  the  passage  is  a  strange  one,  and  might 
seem  to  disturb  the  smoothness  of  the  chapter,  and 
as  its  superstitious  readings  have  been  associated 
always  with  an  intermediate  state,  we  beg  to  suggest 
what  is  most  simple.  And  though  our  solution  is  a 
new  one,  it  is  all  the  more  fair  ;  for  it  offers  itself, 
without  any  prejudice  in  its  defence,  solely  upon  the 
evidences  in  the  words  of  Scripture. 

The  Apostle,  having  appealed  to  the  analogies  of 
doctrine  for  his  position,  viz.  to  Adam,  and  to 
Christ,  and  to  the  victory  of  Christ  over  death, 
appeals  next  to  ordinance,  and  to  their  own  usages 
as  Christians.  And  he  appeals  to  baptism  as  one  of 
the  most  comprehensive  of  ordinances,  and  a  good 
type  of  all  the  rest.  He  says,  "  Else  what  shall  they 
do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise 
not  ? "     The  superstitious  solutions  to  which   men 


Fifteenth    Chapter   of  First    Corinthians.       yy 

have  seemed  driven,  have  all  originated  in  limiting 
the  meanings  of  the  preposition  which  is  translated 
''  fory  That  word  in  the  Greek  has  all  the  ambi- 
guities of  which  it  is  capable  in  the  English.  It  is  a 
word  therefore  that  can  mean  as.  We  say  in  Eng- 
lish, "  I  shall  run  for  governor  :  "  or  we  say,  "  Hang 
him  for  a  thief;  "  or  we  say,  "■  Trust  him  for  a  per- 
jured villain."  This,  therefore,  is  a  rendering  that 
is  possible  with  the  apostle  (see  Thucyd.  1,141). 
We  take  it  as  the  solution  of  the  passage.  Paul 
means,  In  all  those  ordinances  that  recognize  man 
as  "  dead,"  what  are  you  imagining  ?  Why  are  you 
baptized  as  being  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  ?  Your 
ritual  images  of  death,  are  they  not  hopeful  with  the 
light  of  resurrection?  This  is  his  meaning.  And  it 
gets  rid  of  all  puerile  conceits  ?  There  is  no  trace  of 
a  baptism  for  dead  persons :  and  when  at  length 
such  usages  appeared,  it  was  like  the  Chinaman  imi- 
tating to  the  very  patch.  It  was  a  usance  built  on 
this  text.  And  it  was  like  washing  one  another's 
feet  (Jo.  xiii :  14),  Hke  the  kiss  of  Sandeman  (Ro. 
xvi :  16),  and  like  regeneration  in  baptism  (Jo.  iii : 
5),  a  running  into  the  ground  of  the  words  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

So  much  for  this  little  soupqon  of  an  intermedi- 
ate state.  The  words  of  the  chapter,  in  all  other 
respects,  present  a  solid  front  against  our  immor- 
tality. 


78  Immortality   not   in   Scripture, 


CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Two  Adverse  Passages 

By  far  the  most  serious  passages  against  our  doc- 
trine are  those  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Second  Corin- 
thians, and  in  the  first  chapter  of  Phihppians.  One 
speaks  of  being  absent  from  the  body  and  being 
present  with  the  Lord  (2  Cor.  v:  8),  and  the  other 
of  departing  and  being  with  Christ  which  is  far 
better  (Phil,  i:  23). 

We  are  bound  as  honest  men  to  say  that  if  they 
were  really  just  as  they  are  translated,  we  would  not 
be  moved  by  these  single  passages  away  from  that 
vast  array  of  proof  that  crowds  the  Word.  We 
would  neglect  them,  even  if  we  could  not  explain 
them  ;  just  as  we  would  neglect  the  passage,  "  This 
is  my  body,"  even  if  we  could  not  expound  it  so  as 
to  yield  to  the  enormous  mass  that  presses  against 
its  being  taken  as  it  is. 

If  we  thought  these  passages  were  to  be  trans- 
lated as  they  stand,  we  would  say  that  for  all  practi- 
cal purposes  they  were  true,  because  we  do  depart 
and  be  with  Christ,  the  ages  that  might  come  be- 
tween being  quite  unconscious  nothings  in  our  path 
to  our  Redeemer. 

But  fortunately  for  our  prejudiced  position,  it 
does  not  ask  from  us  such  a  boldness.  The  passages 
correct  themselves;  and  we  desire  to  show  how  the 
same  apostle  that  wrote  the  chapter  in  First  Corin- 
thians, could  write  these  also,  and  yet  be  steeped  in 


The    Two   Adverse   Passaires. 


79 


the  idea  that  we  pass  into  an  unconscious  state,  and 
that  the  soul  is  not  immortal. 

And  lest  it  should  be  imagined,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  that  we  must  begin  now  a  destructive  criti- 
cism, and  do  that  which  men  are  too  prone  to  do, 
viz.,  abate  at  all  hazards  an  antagonist  revelation,  we 
state  what  the  most  prejudiced  will  be  arrested  by, 
viz.,  that  the  world's  ablest  evangelical  commentators 
have  expressed  their  wonder  that  their  favorite  doc- 
trine of  immortality  should  be  so  strangely  left  out 
from  these  very  passages,  which  seemed  most  to 
teach  it. 

For  example,  Lange  ;— "  It  may  be  alleged  that 
the  intermediate  state  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection is  entirely  lost  sight  of  in  the  Apostle's  mind, 
inasmuch  as  we  know  that  he  looked  upon  it  as 
altogether  temporary,  and  hence  that  the  perfection 
to  be  obtained  after  the  resurrection  was  the  absorb- 
ing object  of  his  attention  in  this  passage"  (2  Cor.  v : 
i).  Dr.  Hodge  argues  that  the  "building"  here 
spoken  of  is  evidently  to  be  entered  upon  at  death  : 
therefore  he  denies  that  it  is  the  body,  and  argues 
that  it  must  be  heaven  itself  (see  Com.).  Ellicott  on 
the  other  passage  would  evidently  qualify  the  right 
to  "  dogmatic  deductions  in  reference  to  the  inter- 
mediate state"  (see  his  Com.  Phil,  i :  23).  But  in 
Lange  such  a  reserve  is  much  more  pronounced  : — 
"  There  is  no  thought  here  of  an  intermediate  state" 
(see  Lange  on  same  verse) :  and  in  Alford  on  Second 
Corinthians  the  omission  is  apologized  for, — "  A 
difficulty  has  been  raised  by  some  commentators 
respecting  the  intermediate  disembodied  state, — how 


8o  Lmnortality  not   in   Scripture. 

the  apostle  here  regards  it,  or  whether  he  regards  it 
at  all.  .  .  The  intermediate  state,  though  lightly- 
passed  over,  as  not  belonging  to  the  subject,  is  evi- 
dently in  the  mind  of  St.  Paul"  (see  Alford,  2  Cor. 
v:  i).  Could  there  be  a  stronger  argument?  The 
two  passages  which  are  the  chief  resort  of  theolo- 
gians who  would  teach  the  doctrine  of  our  immor- 
tality, are  found  under  the  most  scholarly  hands  to 
be  so  disturbing  to  the  commentators  as  to  their 
own  ground  of  an  intermediate  state,  that  they  have 
constantly  to  be  apologizing  for  Paul  for  seeming  to 
teach  the  very  opposite  idea. 

And  now  as  to  the  passages  themselves.  That 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  begins  to 
speak,  in  the  fourth  chapter,  of  our  outward  man 
perishing,  and  our  inward  man  being  renewed  day 
by  day  (iv:  1 6).  This  sentence  is  certainly  far  from 
encouraging  our  separating  a  soul  from  a  body ;  or 
our  making  either  the  outward  or  the  inward  stand 
clear  the  one  from  the  other  as  literally  flesh  and 
spirit.  But  whatever  cannot  be  distinguished  there, 
cannot  be  distinguished  certainly  in  the  texts  that 
follow.  '■'■  For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a 
moment,  worketh  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and 
eternal  weight  of  glory  ;  while  we  look  not  at  the 
things  which  are  seen,  but  at  the  things  which  are 
not  seen  :  for  the  things  which  are  seen  are  tempo- 
ral ;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal. 
For  we  know  that  if  our  earthly  house  of  this  taber- 
nacle were  dissolved,  we  have  a  building  of  God,  an 
house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens" 
(iv:  17,  18;  v:  i). 


TJie    Two   Adverse   Passages.  8i 

Now  let  us  suggest  three  theories.  A  physicist, 
when  he  cannot  unravel  facts,  suggests  a  theory. 
That  is  the  triumphant  theory  which  takes  in  all  the 
facts.  Such  is  really  the  way  to  study  a  passage : 
it  is,  to  take  up  all  the  theories  that  different  minds 
may  suggest.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage 
which  accords  with  the  word  of  God,  and  embraces 
as  a  consistent  whole  the  circle  of  its  texts,  (i)  The 
first  theory  we  reject.  It  is,  that  "  our  house  of  this 
tabernacle"  means,  nakedly  and  without  any  distinc- 
tion in  the  least,  the  intelligent  man,  or  the  intelli- 
gent soul.  We  waste  our  thinking  upon  such  a  folly. 
The  thought  of  a  house,  or,  as  we  go  further  on, 
the  thought  of  a  garment,  must  have  an  eye  to  some- 
thing that  is  covered  ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  soul 
dies  with  the  body  in  such  a  way  as  that  the  figure 
of  a  house  has  no  force,  is  corrected  by  the  very  lan- 
guage. The  theory,  therefore,  that  would  make  all 
this  mean  that  the  house  is  the  soul  and  the  soul  is 
the  house,  would  be  absurd  past  the  possibilities. 
Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  earthly  house  of  this  our 
tabernacle  being  dissolved,  must  be  speaking  of  some- 
thing that  admits  this  idea  of  shelter. 

(2)  It  might  seem,  therefore,  that  all  that  our 
adversaries  asked  for  was  allowed.  Their  theory  is 
that  the  body  is  this  shelter  ;  that  when  Paul  says, 
"  that  I  must  shortly  put  off  this  my  tabernacle," 
he  means  the  body  ;  and  that  he  means  it  in  so  distin- 
guishable a  sense  as  that  the  body  can  be  dissolved 
and  perish,  and  that  the  soul  can  live.  This  is  the 
theory  that  we  are  combating.  This  is  the  theory 
that  grows,  so  so   many  commentators  think,  so  in- 

4* 


82  hmnortality   not   in  Scripture. 

evitably  out  of  this  passage.  And  this  is  the  theory 
that  we  ourselves  confess  (grant  it  the  prevalence  that 
it  at  this  day  holds),  seems  to  come  naturally  into  this 
passage,  and  to  take  up  its  parts  with  scarce  a  chal- 
lenge to   any  preconceived  ideas. 

(3)  But  now  abandon  this  theory  for  a  moment. 
Let  me  substitute  another.  Imagine  the  common 
one  to  be  clean  off  the  stage.  Suppose  the  soul  not 
separate,  and  life  not  to  last,  and  the  stage  to  be 
actually  free,  so  that  the  mind  of  man  could  get  up 
its  images  for  that  state  of  things  which  would  super- 
vene upon  an  intermittency  of  our  being.  Let  us 
merely  try  that  condition  for  our  rhetoric.  The  bean 
would  have  no  life  outside  of  its  matter,  and  yet, 
when  this  was  granted,  we  might  begin  to  speak  of 
the  life  of  the  bean.  We  might  image  it  as  shut  up 
in  its  matter.  We  might  in  figure  talk  of  its  depart- 
ing from  the  bean.  And  we  might  most  reasonably 
indulge  in  such  an  imagery  for  the  plant  as  would 
make  its  stem  and  branches  the  "  tabernacle  "  of  its 
whole  vitality. 

Who  would  wonder  at  this  as  to  a  brute? 

Now  if  I  may  speak  of  a  brute  as  having  his 
"tabernacle"  in  the  body;  and  if  I  may  speak  of 
his  soul  as  departing,  when  it  does  not  travel  one 
inch  from  the  ashes  of  his  tomb,  why  may  I  not  do 
the  same  in  respect  to  man  ?  particularly  if  the  whole 
stage  is  cleared,  and  there  are  no  preconceived  ideas 
to  curtail  the  scope  of  this  bolder  and  freer  employ- 
ment of  the  image  ? 

For  example,  when  Peter  says,  **  Knowing  that 
shortly  I  must  put  off  this  my  tabernacle  ;"  if  we  were 


TJic    Two   Adverse   Passages.  83 

positively  advertised  that  we  had  no  surviving  con- 
sciousness, we  would  have  no  revolting  at  any  violence 
in  the  figure  ;  but  would  simply  understand  that,  as 
in  the  instance  of  the  plant,  the  whole  concentrated 
life  was  thought  of  as  under  the  shelter  of  the  body. 

Now  our  argument  is  that  the  passage  in  Corin- 
thians is  more  after  this  theory  (3)  than  after  the 
other  (2). 

Paul  says,  "We  know  that  if  our  earthly  house 
of  this  tabernacle  were  dissolved,  we  have" — what? 
An  immortal  consciousness?  Noticeably  not:  but 
just  what  we  would  have  if  our  life  went  out  at  death, 
and  went  in  again  at  the  resurrection.  It  is  not  even 
said,  We  shall  have.  But  just  as  if  there  were  no 
conscious  experience  between  one  tabernacle  and 
another,  '*  We  have." 

And  now  notice  other  points.  If  the  soul  perishes 
at  death  ;  that  is,  if  life  goes  out  altogether,  and  the 
soul  is  but  the  appanage  of  the  body,  the  man  never 
has  an  absolutely  holy  life  till  the  resurrection. 
Consequently  that  resurrection  is  very  great,  and  the 
soul,  if  it  perishes  at  death,  not  simply  gets  back  its 
body  at  the  last,  but  gets  its  earliest  perfectness. 
This  corresponds  with  Paul  speaking  so  much  of 
*'  tJiat  dayy  In  fact  it  unravels  the  puzzle  of  so 
much  talk  about  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  If 
the  soul  dies  out  at  death,  it  does  not  come  in  at  our 
risin^  after  as^es  of  crrace,  but  it  comes  in  fresh  from 
the  ashes  of  the  sepulchre ;  and  therefore  a  great 
step  upward  is  made,  a  great  grace  is  given,  on  the 
morning  of  the  resurrection.  The  soul  that  went 
out  sighing,    comes  up  a  glorious    inheritor.     And, 


84  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

therefore,  *'  the  day  of  redemption,"  as  that  day  of 
new  Hfe  is  scripturally  called  (Eph.  iv :  30),  is  a  most 
significant  account  ;  seeing  that  the  soul,  if  our 
scheme  be  true,  has  never  experienced  before  felicity 
or  purity  of  being. 

Now  I  beg  that  in  this  light  the  chapter  before 
us  be  considered.  If  it  be  merely  the  dust  that  rises  ; 
see  what  exas^s^erated  lansuaCTe.  ''  A  buildinor  of 
God  !  "  And  then  comes  a  sentence  that  occurs  twice 
before  in  the  Bible.  Circumcision  is  implied  to  be  not 
"  made  with  hands''  (Eph.  ii :  1 1  ;  Col.  ii :  1 1).  The  ex- 
pression evidently  means  that  which  does  not  spring 
from  preliminary  causes.'^  A  circumcision  not  made 
with  hands  means  a  purifying  of  the  heart,  out  of  the 
course  and  without  the  efficiency  of  nature.  So 
Christ  was  not  made  with  hands  (Mar.  xiv  :  58) 
when,  as  a  temple,  he  was  destroyed  one  day,  and 
raised  up  another.  These  things  rise  like  an  exhala- 
tion, without  that  preliminary  cause  the  absence  of 
which  is  made  a  cavil  against  our  doctrine.     So  then, 

*  Paul  actually  explains  what  it  means.  He  says,  "  Christ  being 
come  an  high  priest  of  good  things  to  come,  by  a  greater  and  more 
perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this 
building  "  (e.  V.  Heb.  ix :  11.)  We  spring  eagerly  after  the  Greek, 
and  this  unveils  itself — "  Not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  NOT 
OF  THIS  CREATION."  What  a  noble  text  for  Huxley  !  He  may  carry 
back  evolution  as  far  as  he  please.     There  come  at  last  things  "  not 

MADE  WITH  HANDS,  THAT  IS  TO  SAY,  NOT  OF  THIS  CREATION."  Adam 

and  Eve  were  such  things,  as  to  any  previous  universe.  The  widow's 
**  oil"  was  such  a  thing,  when  it  welle'd  up  to  pay  her  debts  (i  Ki.  xvii ; 
14).  The  twelve  baskets  full  of  fragments  were  such  things  (Matt. 
xiv:  20).  They  were  "  NOT  OF  this  creation."  And  the  raised 
sinner  will  be  such  a  thing,  a  something  "  not  made  with  hands  eter- 
nal in  the  heavens"  (2  Cor.  v  :  i). 


TJlc    Two   Adverse   Passages.  85 

when  this  house  is  said  to  be  "  not  made  with  hands," 
it  is  too  grave  a  statement,  along  particularly  with  so 
many  other  that  we  notice,  to  be  applied  merely  to 
the  waking  of  the  body  ;  and  means  that  total  rising, 
that  new  creation  at  the  last,  which  makes  a  new 
man  so  utterly,  that  the  cavil  has  already  been 
noticed  that  it  destroys  our  accountability  in  the 
reckoning. 

Now,  notice  other  words.  It  is  a  house  "  from 
heaven"  (v.  ii) :  nay,  it  is  a  house  ''  in  the  heavens" 
(v.  i).  Surely  this  is  strong  language  for  our  dust. 
Again,  no  mention  is  made  of  spirit.  Paul  is  com- 
forting himself  for  death,  and  not  a  word  is  said 
about  the  years  when  he  is  in  the  sepulchre.  He 
strikes  right  across  the  flood,  and  sets  his  comfort  in 
the  resurrection.  He  vests  nothing  in  being  disem- 
bodied. His  commentators  notice  that.  But  he 
has  now  two  pictures  which  seem  to  me  well  nigh 
decisive  ;  one  that  he  longs  to  be  "  clothed  upon." 
The  meaning  in  the  third  verse  is  a  little  clouded. 
Let  me  translate  it  strictly.  "  Earnestly  desiring  to 
be  clothed  upon  with  our  house  which  is  from 
heaven,  if  so  be  that  we  may  be  found  clothed,  not 
naked.  For  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan 
being  burdened  ;  not  for  that  we  would  be  un- 
clothed, but  clothed  upon,  that  mortality  might  be 
swallowed  up  of  life"  (vs.  2-4).  Now  it  may  do 
very  well  to  say  that  Paul  shrunk  from  being  disem- 
bodied ;  but  why?  If  that  was  our  nature  ;  if  that 
was  our  well  understood  gift  ;  if  to  be  disembodied 
was  to  be  for  the  first  time  perfect,  and  to  be  for  a 
long   time   happy  ;  and  resurrection  was  after  that, 


S6  Ivnnortality   not   in   Scripture. 

thousands  of  years, — it  was  impossible  that  Paul 
should  labor  to  disgust  the  pious,  and  breed  a  fever 
for  immediate  resurrection ;  and  should  call  that 
being  clothed  upon  ;  and  should  put  it  in  the  strong 
shape  of  "  mortality"  being  **  swallowed  up  of  life" 
(v.  4)  ;  and  what  is  still  more  incredible,  say  that 
"  he  that  hath  wrought  us  for  the  self-same  thing  is 
God"  (v.  5),  as  though  they  really  should  escape 
being  disembodied,  and  as  though  they  really  should 
be  clothed  upon,  and  escape  the  long  millenniums 
of  an  unclothed  but  rapturous  felicity.  Now  all  this 
is  dangerously  incredible. 

And  we  add  to  it  the  other  sentence.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  **  earnest  of  the  Spirit"  (v.  5).  Why 
did  he  need  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  for  a  mere 
carnal  rising?  It  seems  that  this  is  the  strongest 
consideration  that  has  been  mentioned.  If  he  was 
to  rise  as  a  total  penitent,  buried  sinful  and  rising 
perfect,  then  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  is  significant 
as  showing  him  the  proof  that  he  had  been  sealed 
for  that  better  resurrection.  But  that  he  was  to  be 
happy  for  thousands  of  years,  and  that  the  whole 
thing  talked  of  was  the  mere  resurrection  of  flesh, 
makes  the  whole  comfort  seem  ridiculous.  He  was 
not  to  be  clothed  upon  ;  he  was  not  wrought  for  the 
self-same  thing ;  he  was  not  to  escape  being  un- 
clothed ;  and  he  was  not  to  realize  the  earnest  of 
the  Spirit  in  any  mere  waking  of  the  body,  till  ages 
after  his  admission  into  paradise. 

And  now  the  critical  sentence  !  (v.  8). 

Let  me  premise  : — Paul  seems  to  bend  all  feeling 
toward   the   tenth   verse,  which  like    many  another 


The    Two   Adverse  Passages.  87 

closing  announcement  in  the  Bible  (see  Matt,  xviii  : 
14,  35  ;  XX :  16;  xiv:  1 1),  seems  to  be  the  pith  of 
all  that  has  been  declared.  He  says,  *'  We  must  all 
appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ."  This 
seems  to  live  in  his  memory  as  the  great  back- 
ground of  every  picture.  When  therefore  he  says, 
"  We  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight"  (v.  7),  we  under- 
stand him  as  we  do  in  the  fourth  chapter  (v.  18), 
•'  While  we  look  not  at  the  things  which  are  seen, 
but  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen."  Paul  was 
doing  this  very  thing  when  he  uttered  the  sixth 
verse,  "  Therefore  we  are  always  confident ;"  that  is. 
Living,  we  keep  up  our  confidence  more  like  other 
men,  but  dying,  we  have  these  pictures  before  us, — 
"  While  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent 
from  the  Lord"  (v.  6).  And  it  is  just  here  he  puts 
in  that  sentence,  ''  For  we  walk  by  faith,  not  by 
sight"  (v.  7).  And  then  comes  the  great  text,  "  We 
are  confident  I  say  and  willing  rather  to  be  absent 
from  the  body,  and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord" 
(v.  8).  Now,  in  the  first  place,  if  this  means,  when 
absent  from  the  body  like  life  out  of  a  bean  stalk  he 
was  immediately  present  wath  the  Almighty,  is  it 
not  strange  he  should  be  so  shy  of  saying  so  all 
through  the  rest  of  the  context  ?  This  was  the  very 
state  he  seemed  to  fly  from, — to  call  it  unclothed— to 
speak  of  it  as  naked — to  beg  concerning  it  that  it 
may  be  clothed  upon,  and  to  long  to  skip  over  it, 
that  in  the  language  of  the  context  "  mortality  might 
be  swallowed  up  of  life.'' 

But,  second,  behold  now  the  language.     Suppose 
Paul  had  really  believed  as  we  do.     Suppose  he  had 


88  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

thought  about  this  intervening  period,  and  too  care- 
fully to  be  willing  to  throw  haze  over  it  in  the  struc- 
ture of  his  speech.  Suppose  he  was  bent  upon  the 
rising  at  the  last,  but  not  so  as  to  forget  the  sleeping 
in  the  sepulchre, — how  would  he  manage?  Why, 
exceedingly  well  by  using  a  very  preposition  that  is 
employed  in  his  text :  he  says  not,  '*  absent  from  the 
body  and  present  WITH  the  Lord"  (the  very  expres- 
sion that  makes  the  passage  in  Philippians  more  for- 
midable, for  there  he  does  say,  ''  depart  and  be  with 
Christ"),  but  he  says  "■  tozvards  the  Lord,"  or  on  the 
way  to  Him,  or  as  pertaining  to  Him  (''  things /^r- 
taining  to  God,"  as  the  word  is  translated,  Heb.  v: 
i) ;  and  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  passage  it 
gives  the  most  undoubted  right  to  insist  upon  the 
difference,  as  lying  smooth  with  all  the  other  peculi- 
arities that  have  been  before  us.  "  VVe  are  confident 
I  say  and  willing,  rather  to  be  away  from  home  as  to 
the  body,  and  at  home  in  the  direction  of  the  Lord." 
For,  mark  you,  he  has  just  said,  "  We  walk  by  faith, 
ijot  by  sight"  (v.  7).  And  then  to  show  how  this 
prognostic  of  his  is  really  the  home  in  which  he  is 
living  in  the  direction  of  his  Master,  he  puts  it  beyond 
doubt:  *' For,  we  must  all  be  manifested" — that  is 
the  expression.  It  is  not  the  mere  word  "  appear" 
(E.  v.).  It  is,  *'  We  must  all  be  manifested."  And 
how  can  that  be  if  we  have  been  known  as  saints  for 
thousands  and  thousands  of  years  ?  *'  We  must  all 
be  manifested,"  that  is  at  our  rising  again  ;  *'  that 
every  one  may  receive  by  the  body" — why  not  by  the 
soul,  and  long  ago  at  our  death? — "  that  every  one 


TJic    Tivo  Adverse  Passages.  89 

may  receive  by  the  body  things  according  to  what  he 
hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad"  (v.  10). 

"  Knowing  therefore  the  terror  of  the  Lord"  (v. 
11).  Disembodied  states  he  builds  no  warning  upon 
at  all. 

Now  we  appeal  to  all  the  fair-minded,  whether 
the  passage,  thus  winnowed,  does  not  fall  from  its 
high  estate  ;  and  whether  it  must  not  cease  to  be  one 
of  the  two  great  pillars  of  our  immortality. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  other  passage  (Phil.  i). 

Paul  is  speaking  of  the  same  subject,  viz.,  his 
death  :  only  he  is  speaking  of  it  with  even  more 
discrimination.  He  is  speaking  of  it  in  view  of  the 
great  doctrine  that  God  loves  the  church  ;  and  he 
is  pressing  it  into  a  corollary  that  is  seldom  thought 
of,  and  is  never  noticed  in  the  exposition  of  his 
epistle.  It  is  the  corollary  that,  as  God  withholds 
nothing  from  the  church,  he  would  not  withhold 
Paul  from  the  church,  if  his  living  or  dying  could  be 
useful  to  its  kingdom. 

This  then  was  the  crisis  with  Paul.  If  it  was 
best,  he  would  live :  if  it  was  best,  he  would  die. 
And  this  best  meant,  best  for  the  church.  "  To  me 
to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  gain"  (v.  21).  That  is. 
If  I  live,  it  will  be  that  Christ  needed  me,  and 
worked  in  me,  and  actually  was  I,  for  a  living  gra- 
cious up-building  of  some  of  his  people.  And  if  I 
die,  it  will  be  because  it  was  gain  for  somebody  that 
I  die.  This  was  his  doctrine  ;  and  he  pursues  it 
strikingly  from  the  beginning.  "  That  in  nothing  I 
shall  be  ashamed"  (v.  21).  He  alludes  to  so  un- 
promising a  thing  even  as  his  bonds  (v.   13);  and 


go  Immortality   not    in    Scripture. 

says  that  all  his  things  were  falling  out  "  rather 
unto  the  furtherance  of  the  gospel"  (v,  12).  He 
showed  Jwzv  his  bonds  had  done  good  ;  that  they 
were  manifest  as  for  Christ  in  all  the  palace.  He 
said,  some  had  waxed  bold  by  them  (v.  14).  And 
then  he  speaks  of  actual  sin  in  preachers ;  as  for 
example  preaching  Christ  of  contention  ;  and  boldly 
cries  that  even  that  will  be  overruled  ;  uttering  that 
eloquent  passage,  "  Nevertheless,  Christ  is  preached  ; 
and  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea  and  will  rejoice"  (v.  18). 
"  For,"  says  he,  ''  this  shall  happen  to  me  for  salva- 
tion," that  is  for  the  general  salvation;  and  how? 
For  any  merit  in  wicked  men  ?  No  ;  but  "  through 
your  prayer,  and  the  supply  of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus 
Christ"  (v.  19).  And  then  he  announces  his  ''  ear- 
nest expectation  and  hope  that  in  nothing  shall  [he] 
be  ashamed  ;  but  that  with  all  boldness,  as  always, 
so  now  also,  Christ  shall  be  magnified  in  [his]  body 
whether  it  be  by  life  or  by  death"  (v.  20). 

And  now  it  is  on  this  plot  that  we  are  to  begin 
the  consideration  of  the  passage. 

We  will  translate  literally. 

We  have  already  considered  the  next  verse. 
"  For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die  gain"  (v.  21). 
*' But  if  to  live  in  the  flesh  that  is  to  me  to  be  fruit 
of  labor  and  what  I  shall  choose,  I  do  not  declare  it" 
(for  the  best  reason  in  the  world,  because  he  does  not 
know  it),  his  meaning  being  that  if  living  was  the 
most  useful,  it  would  be  what  he  would  choose  to  do, 
and  what  he  actually  would  do,  for  he  chose  to  do 
that  which  would  be  most  useful,  and  what  he  chose 
to  do  therefore  would  be  accomplished,  for  that  would 


The    Two  Adverse  Passages.  91 

be  accomplished  which  would  be  most  useful,  only  he 
could  not  tell  whether  it  \vould  be  life  or  death. 
'*  For  I  am  held  back  "  (he  goes  on)  *'  from  either" 
(that  is,  on  account  of  the  above  entire  uncertainty), 
"  having  the  desire,  as  to  the  departing,  to  be  also  with 
Christ,  which  is  the  far  better  thing"  (that  is,  with  all 
the  certainty  that,  if  that  turns  out  to  be  the  lot,  it 
will  be  the  useful  lot,  on  the  principle  already  an- 
nounced, and  then  "  also'  the  happy  lot,  making  it 
"far  better");  "nevertheless  to  abide  in  the  flesh, 
in  case  that  be  the  more  necessary  for  you.  And 
once  made  sure  of  that"  (viz.,  that  to  abide  is  more 
necessary  for  you),  "  I  know  that  I  shall  abide,  and 
continue  with  you  all  for  your  furtherance  and  joy  of 
faith  "  (22-25).  This  last  has  been  missed  by  every- 
body. The  reading  has  been  "  Having  this  confi- 
dence." Paul  would  then  say,  "  Having  this  confi- 
dence, I  know  that  I  shall  abide."  In  the  next  sen- 
tence he  would  make  it  stronger.  He  would  imply 
that  he  will  come  to  them  again.  Whereas  the  whole 
thing  is  conditioned  on  his  knowing  that  it  would  be 
for  their  good.  The  fact  is  he  never  did  come  to 
them  again, — so  most  people  believe ;  "^  and  it  is  only 
on  the  rendering  that  we  propose  (and  see  warrant 
for  it,  in  English  as  well  as  in  Greek,  in  the  use  of 
the  participle)  that  the  passage  can  be  redeemed 
from  the  most  pitiable  confounding  on  the  part  of 

*  Conybeare  and  Howson  teach  a  different  idea  ;  but  the  evidences 
are,  to  say  the  very  least,  obscure  ;  and  they  do  not  in  the  least  relieve 
the  difficulty  of  their  making  Paul  to  say  that  he  had  "  confidence  " 
in  a  thing  which  he  had  said  a  moment  before  that  he  knew  nothing 
about. 


gz  Immortality   not   in   Reason. 

the  apostle  of  his  own  confession  of  entire  ignorance 
(v.  22). 

Regarding  this,  therefore,  as  the  whole  drift  of 
Paul,  and  considering  him  as  alive  with  the  thought 
that  what  was  best  for  them  that  was  the  thing  that 
was  to  override  his  murderers,  can  we  give  emphasis 
to  the  side  thought,  having  the  "desire,  as  to  depart- 
ing, to  be  also  with  Christ,"  to  make  it  determinate 
of  the  fact  that  when  we  depart  we  shall  be  immedi- 
ately with  Christ,  and  that  in  the  sense  of  his  con- 
scious kingdom  ? 

I  think  no  fair  mind  can  say  that  we  can. 

And  luckily,  we  can  appeal  to  precedents.  Take 
the  passage  in  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  v :  i).  Our  op- 
ponents read,  "  If  this  earthly  house  is  dissolved,  we 
have'' — the  verb  is  in  the  present.  Of  course  the 
inference  must  be  that  the  heavenly  house  follows 
immediately.  Does  any  one  reason  in  that  way? 
We  are  said  in  Scripture  to  sleep  in  Jesus  (i  Thess. 
iv  :  14).  And  we  are  said  in  the  Confession  to  have 
our  "  bodies  still  united  to  Christ  "(Sh.  Cat.  Qu.  37). 
Is  there  association  with  Christ  in  our  very  dust 
when  it  has  been  scattered,  and  shall  Paul  be  im- 
peached of  carelessness  when  in  the  rush  of  a  quite 
different  thought  bespeaks  of  being  happy  in  death, 
when  it  has  been  determined  on  high  that  that  will  be 
most  useful  to  the  cause,  and  when  there  is  but  an  un- 
conscious interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection  ? 

Samuel  says,  *'  Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me  to 
bring  me  up?"-  (i   Sam.  xxviii :   15).     We  take  it 

*  Will  the  reader  please  make  a  mark  here  ?     We  will  avoid  the 
trouble  of  quoting  again.     Samuel  does  not  say,  Why  hast  thou  dis- 


TJie   Spirits  in   Prison.  93 

that,  but  for  this  disquieting,  the  dead  saint  would 
have  been  dreamless  in  decay,  and  like  the  flash  of 
the  cable  line,  he  was  fleeting  across  the  centuries, 
having  departed  to  be  with  Christ  with  none  but  an 
unconscious  interval. 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  Spirits  in  Prison. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  meaning  of 
Peter  in  the  last  part  of  the  third  chapter  of  his 
earlier  Epistle,  the  vast  majority  of  commentators 
believe  that  it  alludes  to  an  actual  visit  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  that  it  sets  at  rest  the  question  of  our 
spirits. 

Let  me  beg  however  one  favor. 

We  are  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  our  particular 
reading.  It  differs  seriously  from  every  other.  We 
can  hardly  discuss  this  passage  without  giving  it  in 
full.  And  yet  it  makes  one  feel  singularly  foolish, 
when  shoals  of  expositions  have  been  given,  to  at- 
tempt to  fight  our  battle  with  one  which  no  mortal 
has  ever  honored  by  so  much  as  conceiving  in  the 
study  of  the  passage. 

The  favor  is  this. 

It  would  be  awkward  to  confront  the  chapter 
without  letting  our  thought  run  in  the  lines  of  our 
entire   belief.     But   there  are  great   features  of  our 

quieted  me  to  bring  me  down  ?  but,  Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me  to 
bring  me  up  ?  These  are  the  smaller  stripes,  which  nevertheless  all  fit 
perfectly  in  the  Indian  casket. 


94  Iimnortality   not   in   Scripture. 

belief,  which  have  the  main  polemic  value,  which 
could  be  imprinted  on  other  theories. 

For  example  the  "  prison."  We  do  not  believe 
it  is  the  grave  at  all,  but  only  our  impenitence. 
And  "  spirits ! "  We  do  not  believe  they  are  the 
dead  at  all,  but  all  the  impenitent.  These  points 
could  be  admitted  into  other  readings.  We  will, 
therefore,  go  boldy  into  all  our  theory,  believing  that 
while  the  ninety  and  nine  may  reject  our  comments 
as  a  whole,  they  may  be  struck  with  them  in  part ; 
or  at  least  that  we  may  show  that  we  are  helpless  to 
meet  this  passage  at  all,  seeing  that  we  have  grown 
committed  to  a  sense  which  none  other  of  the  stu- 
dents in  the  case  could  think  of  or  venture  to 
defend. 

Now  for  a  beginning,  we  utterly  deny  the  read- 
ing in  the  eighteenth  verse  (i  Pet.  3), — *'  being  put 
to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  Spirit." 
That  would  allude  to  the  crucifixion,  and  refer  only 
to  that  date,  and  fix  the  epoch  of  Christ's  setting 
out,  or  departing,  to  the  day  of  his  resurrection  :  and 
though  we  might  go  on  with  what  remains,  even  if 
we  gave  this  its  usual  significance,  yet  we  prefer  to 
make  it  all  complete.  This  sentence  does  not  refer 
to  the  crucifixion  or  to  the  rising  again,  but  a  word 
is  employed  which  has  been  singularly  lost  sight  of 
in  its  beautiful  determinations  as  to  the  passage. 

That  word  means  "  made  a  dead  man." 

Paul  says,  "  For  thy  sakes  are  we  killed  all  the 
day  long "  (Rom.  viii :  36),  meaning,  *'  as  good  as 
dead  men."  Christ  also  uses  this  word,  "  The 
brother  shall  deliver  up  the  brother  to  death,  and 


TJie   Spirits  in   Prison.  95 

the  father  the  child  :  and  the  children  shall  rise  up 
against  their  parents,  and  cause  tJum  to  be  pnt  to 
deatW  {MdL.\.t.  x:  21),  meaning,  give  them  over  to 
death.  So  the  Pharisees  ;  "  They  sought  false  wit- 
ness against  Jesus  to  put  him  to  death."  It  never 
means  killing  hterally.  And  though  it  occurs  eleven 
times  in  the  Bible  (Matt,  x  :  21  ;  xxvi :  59,  xxvii :  i  ; 
Mar.  xiii ;  12:  xiv  :  55,  Lu.  xxi :  16;  Ro.  vii  :  4; 
viii :  13  ;  viii :  36;  2  Cor.  vi :  9,  i  Pet.  3  :  18),  it  al- 
ways means  delivered  over  to  death,  and  never  in 
any  actual  sense  killed  at  the  time. 

Now  we  believe  that  this  whole  passage  means 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  as  good  as  dead  as  to  the 
flesh  ;  that  is,  would  have  succumbed  to  temptation 
like  any  other  man  (see  Heb.  v:  7)  ;  but  that  he  was 
made  the  living  Saviour  that  he  was,  by  the  Spirit ; 
and  that,  in  the  Spirit,  long  before  he  was  made  flesh 
at  all,  he  set  out  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in  pris- 
on ;  that  is,  as  the  Great  Prophet  God,  preached  to 
poor  sinners. 

And  how  general  this  was,  appears  by  the  next 
expression,  *'  Who  at  any  time  were  disobedient." 
(That  is  the  meaning  of  the  particle  in  numerous  pas- 
sages, I  Cor.  ix:  7;  Eph.  v:  29.)  And  yet  though 
he  has  preached  in  this  way  in  the  Spirit  even  before 
and  after  his  incarnation,  yet  the  chance  for  each 
mortal  man  was  but  "  once."  Notice  how  he  brings 
in  the  case  of  Noah.  "  When  once  the  long-suffering 
of  God  waited."  This  means  to  characterize  all  the 
impenitent  that  ever  lived.  They  are  waited  for  but 
once.  In  the  rush  of  speaking  Peter  brings  in  a 
favorite  case.     Syntactically  he  trespasses  a  little,  for 


96  hnmortality   not   in    Scripture, 

it  is  the  way  with  these  apostles  (Rom.  i  :  7  ;  Eph.  iii : 
i)  ;  but  trespasses  with  method.  He  does  not  say, 
'^  when  once  the  long  suffering  of  God  waited  in  the 
days  of  Noah"  (E.  V.),  but  **  in  days  of  Noah," 
flinging,  in  his  excitement,  before  their  minds  a  cer- 
tain case  before  the  flood:  ''They  did  eat;  they 
drank  ;  they  married  wives,  they  were  given  in  mar- 
riage "  (Matt,  xxiv:  38);  and  thus,  like  Christ  him- 
self, making  the  instance  of  Noah  a  fine  warning  to 
our  whole  impenitence. 

Let  us  recapitulate  the  Apostle  therefore.  Even 
Christ  is  quickened  in  the  Spirit.  In  the  Spirit,  before 
and  since  his  incarnation,  he  has  preached  to  impris- 
oned sinners.  They  are  the  men  who  at  any  time 
have  been  disobedient.  And  God  has  waited  for  them 
*'  once,"  viz.,  in  their  single  life-time,  in  days  of  Noah. 
And  having  thrown  that  picture  before  the  eye,  he 
notes  the  likeness.  They  were  like  Noah  as  to  an  ark. 
They  were  like  Noah  as  to  the  number  saved.  There 
was  a  resemblance  really  in  the  more  shadowy  em- 
blem of  the  "  water."  Let  us  go  over  it  on  these 
points,  hiding  a  little  the  eruptive  rhetoric  of  the 
Apostle.  '*  Long  suffering," — great  and  patient,  and 
yet  critical,  viz.,  "  in  days  of  Noah" :  and  yet  in 
Noachic  days  in  other  respects,  that  an  ark  was  a  pre- 
paring— sadly  alike  equally  in  another  respect,  that 
so  few  were  saved  ;  in  Noah's  case,  only  "  eight  ;  " 
and  sadly  alike  too  in  this,  that  the  very  waters  that 
wrecked  the  earth  saved  the  ark,  and  that  the  very 
death  that  destroys  the  people  saves  us,  when  inflicted 
upon  Christ,  and  raises  us  again  through  his  blessed 
quickening. 


TJie  Spirits    in   Prison.  97 

It  may  be  imagined,  if  it  seem  necessary,  that  this 
interpretation  of  ours  is  aside  from  the  possibiHties 
of  the  passage  ;  but  here  is  precisely  where  we  will 
press  the  difficulties  of  every  other.  It  will  be  seen 
that  w^e  make  the  words  a  mere  continuance  of  the 
didactic  gospel  of  the  apostle.  We  deny  everything 
ghostly.  The  spirits  are  merely  the  impenitent. 
The  preaching  is  merely  the  usual  work  of  the  Di- 
vine Prophet,  for  sinners.  The  waiting  is  merely  the 
gospel  respite.  And  Noah  with  his  days  of  crisis, 
the  ark  and  the  eight  souls  and  salvation  by  water, 
all  mere  picturings,  examples  for  the  race,  because 
actual  instances  of  a  divine  redemption. 

If  any  one  says  that  he  cannot  admit  this  sense, 
then  choose  one  that  is  preferable.  A  capital  way  to 
strip  this  passage  of  mistake  is  to  demand  its  unrav- 
elment.  Tell  what  your  meaning  is.  If  you  say,  It 
is  Christ  preaching  in  Noah,  I  say.  No,  for  by  your 
theory  it  was  at  the  time  of  his  resurrection.  If  you 
say,  It  was  Christ  preaching  after  he  was  risen,  I 
say,  No,  for  it  was  at  the  time  of  Noah.  If  you  say. 
It  was  Christ  preaching  to  the  dead  ;  I  say  Why  then 
speak  of  Noah?  And  if  you  say,  as  many  do,  It  was 
Christ  preaching  to  dead  antediluvians  in  Hades,  I 
ask.  Why  ?  And  I  beg  you  to  give  a  consistent  ac- 
count of  what  message  he  could  bring ;  and  whether 
you  dare  distinctly  to  assume  that  there  is  yet  mercy 
for  the  perished  after  they  have  rejected  it,  and  when 
for  two  thousand  years  they  have  cursed  in  the  bit- 
terness of  perdition. 

This  is  the  treatment  that  seems  to  be  fair.  We 
give  a  meaning,  and   it   is  consistent  with  the  com- 


98  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

mon  gospel.  We  expound  it,  and  bring  it  into  strict 
connection  with  the  text.  If  it  be  denied,  we  have  a 
right  to  demand  another.  If  that  be  given,  we  have 
a  right  to  insist  upon  it,  and  make  it  the  final  appeal. 
Now  of  all  the  expositions  of  this  passage  we  beg  to 
be  informed  of  one  that  can  so  stand  its  own  ground 
under  the  difficulties  that  it  presents,  as  to  be  an 
unblushing  arbiter  in  a  question  like  immortality. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

What  Might  We  Expect  of  Scripture? 

Accused,  as  we  naturally  must  be  found  to  be, 
of  trying  to  fit  Scripture  to  a  preconceived  infidelity, 
of  course  it  will  be  infinitely  just  to  expect  of  the 
old  faith  that  it  shall  purge  itself  of  that  suspicion 
too;  not  bringing  in  a  theory  to  be  tried,  but  finding 
its  theory  obtruded  upon  its  belief  by  the  plain  an- 
nouncements of  the  Holy  Word. 

More  especially  is  this  to  be  the  case  because  the 
doctrine  that  they  teach  has  at  least  three  very  bold 
annunciations. 

In  the  first  place,  it  announces  two  separate  es- 
sences so  independent  in  the  nature  of  man  that  if 
one  lies  dead  upon  the  earth,  the  other  lives  on  per- 
petually. It  must  be  like  a  bat  in  a  cavern,  astonish- 
ing every  body  by  the  skill  with  which  it  grazes 
what  it  meets,  if  the  Bible  can  utter  so  many  books- 
full  of  human  histories,  and  yet  not  speak  in  the 
most  pronounced  way  of  the  soul  and  of  the  body  if 
the  theory  of  what  they  arc  is  not  to  be  brought  to 


What   to   Expect   of  Scripture.  99 

it  to  be  tried,  but  actually  to   be  carved  out  of  it  by- 
its  distinct  expressions. 

In  the  second  place,  if  the  soul  is  to  be  perfect  at 
death,  that  is  to  say  if  the  Christian  at  that  date  is 
immediately  to  pass  into  glory  ;  and  if  therefore  the 
hour  of  death  is  the  most  important  time  of  life  in 
the  one  respect  of  giving  us  our  first  enjoyment  of 
absolute  blessedness,  it  is  impossible  that  such  a  bold 
faith  should  be  gotten  from  a  certain  writing,  and  the 
writing  give  it  so  languidly  forth  that  it  shall  seem 
brought  to  it  from  without,  rather  than  like  a  clear 
bold  fact  taught  by  it  as  its  own  revelation.  Let  us 
think  of  this  carefully.  Here  is  a  wonderful  faith, 
opposing  all  the  analogies  of  our  animal  existence. 
It  is  to  cover  the  whole  ground  of  centuries.  It  is 
to  apply  perhaps  to-morrow,  bringing  us  into  the 
presence  of  our  Maker,  and  describing  our  first  joy, 
which  is  to  last  with  us  through  unnumbered  ages. 
And  here  is  the  book  out  of  which  this  faith  is  to  be 
gathered.  I  say.  It  must  abound  in  it.  If  we  are  to 
get  it  from  no  other  source  whatever,  then  the  exe- 
getes  who  merely  show  that  it  is  not  contradicted, 
show  nothing.  It  pretends  to  come  from  no  other 
source.  If  the  Bible  does  not  reek  with  immortality, 
the  design  has  failed.  It  is  not  a  doctrine  Hke  in- 
fant baptism.  It  must  be  the  great  imagination  of 
our  lives  ;  and  that  the  Bible,  speaking  of  our  in- 
terests, should  be  like  the  bat  flying  through  the 
cavern,  avoiding  these  interests,  and  grazing  when 
we  should  think  it  impossible  these  main  pillars  of 
the  place,  would  really  defy  beHef,  especially  as  it  is 
not  a  doctrine  that  we  are  to  get   from   abroad,  but 


lOO  Immortality   not   in    Scripture, 

to  get    solely  and  just  as  it  is  from    divine  revela- 
tion. 

In  the  third  place,  if  resurrection  is  taught,  the 
whole  temper  of  the  teaching  must  be  different,  if  it 
be  a  merely  bodily  resurrection,  from  that  which  must 
be  expected  if  the  whole  man  is  raised  from  the  dark- 
ness of  death.  We  insist  upon  this.  If  life  has  never 
gone  out,  resurrection  is  a  mere  secondary  thing, 
bringing  back  to  us  at  best  the  matter  of  our  frames. 
If  we  have  been  living  centuries  in  heaven,  we  shall 
show,  when  we  come  to  array  the  passages,  that  they 
speak  far  too  little  of  death,  and  far  too  much  of  our 
rising ;  that  this  comparative  test  is  decisive  :  we  might 
explain  away  many  other  things,  but  that  the  Bible 
should  harp  so  httle  upon  our  glory,  and  so  much 
upon  our  return  to  flesh  ;  speak  so  often  of  the  vivi- 
fication  of  our  dust,  and  so  scarcely  or  not  at  all  of 
what  befalls  whole  millenniums  before,  is  shockingly 
impossible  ;  and  the  expressions  that  we  shall  heap 
up  of  "  redemption"  (Eph.  iv :  30),  and  *'  glory" 
(Col.  iii :  4),  and  '''  paroiisia'  (2  Pet.  iii :  4),  and  sur- 
prise (Matt.  XXV :  37),  and  remorse  (Lu.  xiii  :  28), 
and  disappointment  (Matt,  vii  :  22),  which  we  shall 
pile  together  as  of  the  last  day  ;  and  the  thinnesses 
and  nothings  that  we  shall  exhibit  upon  our  real  com- 
ing to  glory,  as  our  adversaries  would  teach, — 
present  in  our  view  an  overwhelming  form  of  argu- 
ment ;  offer  the  stripes  in  the  Indian  casket  all  awry ; 
and  obtrude  the  one  theory  of  the  two  under  such 
singular  straits,  as  to  make  the  one  ground  of  its 
strength  the  prejudices  and  preconceptions  of  the 
heathen. 


What   to   Expect   of  Scripture.  loi 

And  now,  as  to  the  other  theory.  If  the  Bible 
teach  it,  we  should  expect  such  things  as  these : — 

We  should  expect  many  a  passage  in  the  Bible  to 
speak  as  though  man  were  nothing  but  body.  If  the 
one  thing  and  the  other  thing  were  constitutionally 
inseparable,  we  should  expect  the  Bible  also  to  speak 
as  though  man  were  nothing  but  soul.  If  the  soul 
and  the  body  were  indissolubly  mixed,  we  should 
expect  many  a  passage  to  speak  of  them  interchange- 
ably, with  but  little  apparent  care  to  separate  them 
in  the  less  vital  passages. 

On  the  other  hand  we  should  expect  them  to  be 
separated.  Just  as  the  life  is  separated  from  the  bean- 
stalk, though  the  life  /i"  the  bean-stalk  numerically  or 
qua  essentia ;  just  as  the  soul  is  separated  from  the 
carrion  (Ec.  iii :  18-21),  though  the  carrion  zvas  i\\Q. 
soul  such  and  so  far  as  that  nothing  floated  away  from 
the  carrion  but  the  power  of  the  Almighty, — so  the 
soul  can  be  separated  from  the  body.-  And  now  the 
immortal  soul  having  been  abandoned,  there  is  room 
to  talk  of  these  separatenesses.  The  life  did  not  sur- 
vive the  bean-stalk:  nevertheless  it  was  additional  to 
it  in  such  a  sense  that  the  matter  for  a  thousand 
years  in  just  such  proportion  would  not  have  pro- 
duced the  bean-stalk  ;  and  the  life  was  additional  and 
a  new  efficiency,  and  a  new  dose  if  you  please  above 
that  which  had  been  given  in  the  efficiencies  of 
matter. 

And  so  the  brutes.  We  may  count  three  things, 
— matter,  life  and  soul.  Matter  may  have  every 
particle  there,  and  not  have  life  ;  and  soul  may  in- 
fuse every  particle  of  matter,  and  yet  never  be  the 


I02  Immortality   not    in    Scripture. 

progeny  of  material  molecules.  It  may  be  an  addi- 
tional and  divine  efficiency. 

So  when  we  climb  to  man,  there  are  four  things 
to  think  of.  Let  us  look  at  this  very  narrowly.  If 
there  are  four,  why  say  two  ?  In  other  words  if  the 
usus  loqiiendi  o{  man  justifies  his  speaking  of  his  body 
and  of  his  life,  and  then  separately  of  his  soul,  and 
then  separately  of  his  spirit,  for  these  last  are  really 
spoken  of  as  pitted  against  each  other  in  certain  pas- 
sages (i  Cor.  XV  :  44-46),  why  may  not  soul  and  body 
be  treated  similarly?  Why  should  the  Bible  speak 
of  soul  and  spirit,  and  yet  they  be  regarded  as  inter- 
terminally  mixed,  and  yet  not  speak  of  soul  and  body 
without  the  suggestion  of  an  independent  essence? 

To  return,  therefore,  to  the  matter  of  theory.  If 
there  be  a  theory  of  a  certain  kind,  what  may  be  ex- 
pected of  the  Bible  if  it  embrace  it?  If  there  be  a 
theory  for  example  like  this,  that  man  has  a  body, 
but  that  the  particles  of  that  body  would  never  give 
themselves  life  by  being  laid  together  ;  that  man  has 
life,  and  therefore  that  life  is  additional  to  the  mere 
endowment  of  matter :  moreover  that  man  has 
thought,  and  as  thought  is  not  life  as  life  belongs  to 
a  bean,  therefore  man  has  soul  also,  a  still  higher  gift, 
but  still  intermixed  (for  that  the  theory  must  be),  as  it 
is  in  the  instances  of  brutes,  with  the  life  and  with  the 
efficiencies  of  matter :  and  lastly,  that  man  has  spirit, 
— the  Bible  must  comply  with  all  these  seemings  : 
and  if  spirit  be  the  abode  of  conscience  ;  that  is,  if  it 
be  reason  as  a  whole  and  mind  as  a  whole,  but  reason 
where  it  has  broken  down,  and  mind  where  it  has 
been  specially  injured  under  our  fall  from  God, — the 


W/iat   to   Expect   of  Scripture.  103 

Bible  will  be  found  especially  obsequious  to  all  these 
changes  of  thought.  It  will  speak  of  man  some- 
times as  all  body.  It  will  speak  of  man  sometimes  as 
all  soul.  It  will  speak  of  life  and  soul  by  terms  that 
are  interchangeable  together.  It  will  speak  of  man 
as  dust.  It  will  speak  of  him  just  as  confidently  as 
spirit.  It  will  speak  of  Abraham  as  a  dead  body. 
It  will  speak  of  a  carcase  in  the  wilderness  as  a  dead 
soul.  It  will  be  careful  to  mix  expressions,  so  as  to 
forbid  superstitiousness.  Nevertheless  it  will  feel 
free  to  distinguish,  and  that,  in  bold  instances,  ad 
tuigueni.  ""  Fear  not  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  are 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul."  And  yet  it  will  do  the 
same  thing  as  to  the  spirit.  Trusting  that  no  one 
will  imagine  that  the  spirit  is  a  separate  essence,  it 
boldly  pits  it  against  the  soul.  It  speaks  of  a  *'  soul- 
body"  and  a  "  spirit-body"  (i  Cor.  xv:  44),  when  all 
that  it  means  is,  that  the  body  is  at  last  to  have  a 
spirit,  that  is,  a  spirit  thoroughly  infused  by  the 
grace  of  conscientious  living. 

Now  our  task  in  the  chapters  that  remain  is  in 
this  way  laid  open.  We  are  intending  to  show  that 
the  soul  is  not  immortal:  that  it  is  not  immortal,  or 
the  Bible  would  speak  more  of  its  independent  being ; 
that  it  is  not  glorious  at  death,  or  the  Scriptures 
would  erect  there  its  flaming  bonfires ;  that  it  is  not 
acquaint  with  bliss  at  the  resurrection,  or  it  would 
not  be  surprised  so  ;  and  that  that  cannot  be  the 
date  of  the  mere  retaking  of  the  body,  or  it  would 
not  be  such  a  red-lettered  date,  so  redolent  of  bliss — 
standing  in  such  sharp  comparisons  with  the  slum- 
bers of  the  sepulchre. 


104  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

Then  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  soul  is  not  im- 
mortal because  all  the  stripes  of  the  bark  casket  match 
in  a  different  fashion.  The  body  is  talked  of  as  though 
it  personated  the  soul,  and  the  soul  is  talked  of  as 
though  it  decayed  with  the  body.  The  life  is  talked 
of  as  though  inseparable  from  both,  and  the  spirit  as 
though  the  complement  of  either.  The  soul  is  talked 
of  as  independent  of  the  spirit,  just  as  much  as  the 
body  is  talked  of  as  independent  of  the  soul :  the 
spirit  being  all  that  a  man  would  be  if  he  were  holy 
(Jo.  iv  :  23) ;  the  flesh  coming  to  mean  mind,  heart, 
even  our  refined  and  more  elevated  nature  when  dead 
inspirit  (Rom.  vii :  18);  and  the  whole  being  no  more 
capable  of  being  used  when  they  have  grown  into 
their  rhetoric  shapes  for  a  dyad  or  a  triad  of  man, 
than  "  body  "  and  "  soul,"  to  be  a  division  of  the 
Almighty  (Dan.  X  :  6;  Lev.  xxvi:   ii). 

We  set  out,  therefore. 

Allow  us  one  caution. 

Matter  is  an  efficiency ;  so  say  some  scientists. 
Soul  is  an  additional  efficiency :  so  say  we.  Now  if 
matter  continues,  though  it  be  but  an  efficiency  of 
power,  why  may  not  soul  continue  ?  And  as  matter 
continues  slumbering  in  the  grave,  why  may  not  soul 
be  somewhere  ;  and  why  may  not  it  have  a  dreamless 
sleep  ?  and  why  may  we  not  get  rid  of  the  horror  of 
thinking  of  it  in  utter  annihilation  ? 

One  might. 

Any  man  impressed  that  way  had  better. 

We  ourselves  have  spoken  of  this  shadow  of 
efficiency.  We  have  suggested  efficiency,  and  some- 
thing more.     What  that  more  is  who  can  tell?     We 


The   Whole  Man,   Body.  105 

are  really  arguing  from  the  Bible.  And  while  the 
Bible  does  not  tell  us  what  that  efficiency  is  that  is 
additional  to  the  bean-matter,  or  what  that  efficiency 
is  that  is  additional  as  the  brute-soul,  it  does  tell  us 
that  the  two  are  inseparably  together.  And  while 
the  matter  and  the  mind  are  both  efficiencies,  they 
differ  in  this.  The  matter  is  not  "  slumbering  in  the 
grave."  It  is  as  alert  as  it  ever  was,  saving  that  it 
lacks  life.  It  is  needed  in  the  circle  of  efficiencies. 
But  the  soul  is  not  needed.  The  Bible  gives  us  plenty 
of  reason  to  understand  why  matter  should  be  kept 
up.  But  the  soul  need  not  be.  It  may  die  in  its 
efficiency,  and  rise  again  at  the  judgment  of  the  just. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Whole  Man,  Body. 

There  is  nothing  left  now  but  to  arrange  sepa- 
rate classes  of  Scripture  as  they  bear  upon  the  ques- 
tion before  us.  Our  procedure  will  be  understood. 
We  do  not  quote  any  passage  with  a  view  of  laying 
much  weight  upon  it.  We  do  not  approach  any  chap- 
ter with  a  view  to  make  the  Scriptures  that  it  employs 
bear  all  the  weight,  or  indeed  do  more  than  their  part 
in  the  general  array.  Our  view  is  to  unite  all  the 
chapters.  If  the  whole  man  has  body,  and  the  whole 
man  dies,  and  the  whole  man  is  buried,  and  the  whole 
man  rises  ;  if  the  whole  man  awakes  to  judgment,  and 
the  whole  man  enters  then  for  the  first  time  among 
the  blessed, — our  proposition  is  proved.  That  is,  no 
one  of  these  points  might  appear  conclusive ;  yet  if 

s* 


io6  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

they  all  combine,  it  betokens  a  habit  of  thought  on 
the  part  of  the  Bible  which  puts  beyond  doubt  the 
question  of  our  being  mortal. 

Now  in  this  chapter  we  are  to  quote  where  the 
whole  man  is  spoken  of  as  body. 

In  the  first  place  he  is  said  to  be  formed  out  of  . 
the  ground.  In  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  the 
brutes  are  said  to  be  "  formed  out  of  the  ground,  and. 
then,  a  moment  afterward,  they  are  called  ''  living 
souls."  The  English  Version  helps  us  a  little  by 
seeming  shy  of  this  latter  expression.  Let  me  quote 
the  whole  passage.  *'  And  out  of  the  ground  Jeho- 
vah God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought  them  to  Adam  to  see 
what  he  would  call  them :  and  whatsoever  Adam 
called  every  living  soul,  that  was  the  name  thereof" 
(Gen.  ii :  19).  And  yet  in  the  same  chapter  this  is 
the  account  of  man, — "  Jehovah  God  formed  man 
dust  out  of  the  ground,^  and  breathed  in  his  nostrils 
breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  Nor 
are  these  uncommon  similarities.  They  occur  often. 
"And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living 
soul  after  his  kind,  cattle  and  creeping  thing  and 
beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind"  (Gen.  i :  24)  ;  and 
then  in  the  third  chapter, — "  In  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  shalt  thou  eat  bread,  till  thou  return  unto  the 
ground  ;  for  out  of  it  wast  thou  taken"  (v.  19).  Sol- 
omon is  infinitely  bolder  ; — "  That  which  befalleth 
the  sons  of  men  befalleth  beasts  ;  even  one  thing  be- 

*  King  James'  men  again  modify  the  Hebrew,  and  say  "  of  tlie 
dust  of  the  ground."  The  difference  may  be  very  slight,  but  the  in- 
clination, on  that  very  account,  very  obvious. 


The   Whole   Man,   Body.  107 

falleth  them:  as  the  one  dicth  so  dieth  the  other; 
yea,  they  have  all  one  spirit ;  so  that  a  man  hath  no 
preeminence  above  a  beast:  for  all  is  vanity.  All 
go  unto  one  place  ;  all  are  oi  the  dust,  and  all  turn 
to  dust  again"  (Ec.  iii  :   19,  20). 

But  not  only  is  man  said  to  be  *'  out  of  the 
ground,"  but  he  is  called  directly  "  dust."  "  God 
made  man  dust  of  the  ground"  (Gen.  ii  :  7).  This  is 
asserted  with  absolute  boldness :  "  Dust  thou  art, 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return"  (Gen.  iii  :  19).  It 
is  turned  about  with  varied  expression  ;  —  "  He 
knoweth  our  frame  ;  he  remembereth  that  we  are 
dust"  (Ps.  ciii  :  14).  "  All  go  unto  one  place  ;  all  are 
of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again"  (Ec.  iii:  20). 
•'  All  flesh  shall  perish  together,  and  man  shall  turn 
again  unto  dust"  (Job.  xxxiv :  15).  ''His  breath 
goeth  forth;  he  returneth  to  his  earth  "  (Ps.  cxlvi : 
4):  and  once  more,  "  Then  shall  the  dust  return  to 
the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  breath"^  shall  return  unto 
God  who  gave  it"  (Ec.  xii :  7). 

Now,  sentences  that  speak  of  us  as  "  flesh"  are 
still  more  striking.  In  the  arguments  of  the  apos- 
tles, flesh  is  made  to  answer  to  the  whole  unregene- 
rate  part  of  man.  It  is  actually  embodied  as  every- 
thing but  the  "  spirit."  And  as  the  "  spirit"  is  the 
conscientious  part  of  our  nature,  the  "  flesh"  must 
be  the  whole  of  the  rest ;  and  therefore  must  be  the 
whole  man  in  such  a  sense  as  to  include  thought  and 
accountable  activity.  So  the  body  is  talked  about. 
"  The  body  is  dead  because  of  sin"  (Ro.  viii :  10).  "  I 
keep  under   my  body,  and  bring  it  into  subjection" 

*  We  shall  recur  to  this  last  passage  (see  Chap.  XII). 


I08  Inmiortality   not   in    Scripture, 

(i  Cor.  ix :  27).  *' That  ye  present  your  bodies  a 
living  sacrifice"  (Rom.  xii  :  i).  Again,  "  Thy  whole 
body  shall  be  full  of  light"  (Matt,  vi :  22).  Again, 
''The  tongue  defileth  the  whole  body"  (Jas.  iii :  6). 
Again,  "  It  is  sown  a  soul-body  ;  it  is  raised  a  spirit- 
body"  (i  Cor.  XV  :  44).  "  Having  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water  "  (Heb.  x  :  22).  Or  once  more,  as 
some  translate, — "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  this 
dead  body?"  (Rom.  vii  :  24). 

Now,  when  we  return  to  the  earlier  part  of  the 
Word,  and  see  "  flesh"  spoken  of  as  though  it  were 
the  whole  of  man  ;  as  when  we  hear  Job  say,  "  All 
flesh  shall  perish"  (Job,  xxxiv :  15"),  or  the  Psalmist, 
— "  He  remembered  that  they  were  but  flesh"  (Ps. 
Ixxviii :  39), or  Moses, — "They  shall  be  one  flesh" 
(Gen.  ii :  24),  or  the  sixth  chapter,  throwing  all  animals 
together, — "destroy  all  flesh"  (v.  i7),-^it  does  not 
settle  indeed  that  such  words  shall  never  be  used 
figuratively ;  but  it  does  throw  the  oims  of  the  kind 
and  degree  of  their  figurative  use  upon  those  who 
gratuitously  assume  that  the  body,  even  when  ani- 
mate, is  a  brutal  essence  in  such  a  sense  that  it  may 
have  living  in  it  or  living  out  of  it,  as  the  case  may 
be,  an  immortal  and  separably  existent  thinking 
spirit. 

We  might  add  a  paragraph  about  the  "  blood."' 
The  '*  blood"  is  said  to  be  the  "  soul"  (Lev.  xvii :  14). 
We  might  speak  of  such  expressions  as,  "  This  is  now 
bone  of  my  bones,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  "  (Gen.  ii  : 
23).  We  might  speak  of  woman  as  derived  from  man, 
and  of  children  derived  through  sixty  centuries  from 
a  single  pair.     But  these  things  will  be  adverted  to 


The    Whole  Man   Dead. 


109 


under  other  heads.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  observe 
that  the  stripes,  fitted  thus  far,  fit  better  with  our 
view  than  the  other;  that  even  when  there  are 
figures,  the  figures  fit  best  in  our  arrangement  of  the 
box  ;  and,  most  graphic  of  all,  that  when  we  search 
through  the  margins  of  King  James,  we  find  whole 
sentences  put  off  there,  proving  by  their  position  in 
the  margin  that  they  are  more  faithful  to  the  text ; 
and  giving  us  this  honest  and  artlessly  rendered  tes- 
timony,— that  they  agree  with  our  view  of  the  soul, 
and  not  with  its  being  independent  in  essence,  and 
continuous  in  immortality. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Whole  Man  Dead. 

Suppose  the  whole  man  does  die  at  death,  how 
would  we  prove  it? 

I.  One  proof  would  be  if  he  is  represented  as  be- 
coming unconscious  ;  and  this  we  have  of  the  very 
strongest  kind.  *'  His  spirit  goeth  forth  ;  he  return- 
eth  to  his  earth  :  in  that  very  day  his  thoughts  per- 
ish "  (Ps.  cxlvi :  4).  Lest  any  one  should  say,  This 
means  merely  his  counsels,  we  can  fairly  pile  up  kin- 
dred expressions.  "  In  death  there  is  no  remembrance 
of  thee.  In  the  grave  who  shall  give  thee  thanks  .^" 
(Ps.  vi  :  5).  ''  For  the  dead  cannot  praise  thee  ;  they 
that  go  down  into  the  pit  cannot  hope  for  thy  truth  " 
(Is.  xxxviii:  18).  ''For  the  living  know  that  they 
shall  die  ;  but  the  dead  know  not  anything  "  (Ec.  ix  : 
5j.     "  For  there  is  no  work,  nor  device,  nor  knovvl- 


no  Timnortality   not   in    Scripture, 

edge,  nor  wisdom,  in  the  grave,  whither  thou  goest'* 
(Eg.  ix  :   lo). 

2.  Another  form  of  proof  is  the  absence  of  ex- 
pressions about  the  death  of  the  bodj.  If  this  were 
the  actual  shape  of  the  occurrence,  it  would  cast  lan- 
guage that  way.  And  yet  it  would  require  the  most 
patient  searching,  to  find  three  passages  in  the  word 
of  God  that  speak  distinctly  of  the  death  of  the 
body. 

3.  On  the  contrary  there  are  hosts  of  passages 
that  speak  of  the  man  s  death.  "  It  came  to  pass  that 
the  beggar  died"  (Lu.  xvi :  22).  Is  it  likely  that  we 
\vould  always  hear  of  Abraham's  dying  (Gen.  xxv  :  8), 
and  Ishmael's  dying  (Gen.  xxv  :  17),  and  how  Rachel 
died  (Gen.  xxxv :  19),  and  how  Christ  died  (Rom. 
xiv  :  9),  never  venturing  even  in  theologic  passages 
to  discriminate  :  and  how  they  killed  the  Prince  of 
Life  (Acts  iii  :  15)  :  is  it  likely  that  there  should  leap 
to  Jacob's  lips  the  expression,  *'  It  is  my  son's  coat ; 
an  evil  beast  hath  devoured  him  :  Joseph  is  without 
doubt  rent  in  pieces"  (Gen.  xxxvii :  33), — if  there 
were  saturated  into  men's  minds  the  confidence  that 
it  was  only  the  body  that  had  died,  and  that  the  spirit 
had  sailed  joyously  away  to  begin  its  superior  ex- 
istence ? 

It  may  be  said,  We  talk  that  way  :  we  speak  of  the 
man  dying.  For  good  rhetorical  reasons  we  think 
of  him  as  living,  and  yet  speak  of  him  as  dead.  And 
the  attempt  might  be  made  to  obviate  entirely  the 
peculiar  appearances  of  revelation.  And  yet  it  must 
be  remembered  that  to  a  large  degree  we  derive  an 
imprint />^;//  revelation.     When  we  speak  of  Joseph 


The    Whole   Man   Dead.  in 

dying,  and  Joseph  being  buried,  and  Joseph  being 
embalmed,  and  Joseph  rising  again  from  the  grave, 
we  follow  the  Scripture  language  even  against  our 
preconceived  ideas;  and  yet  we  have  fabricated  suf- 
ficiently a  language  of  our  own,  to  show  our  differ- 
ence from  Scripture.  We  speak  of  the  dead  corpse, 
and  of  our  mortal  part,  and  of  the  relics  of  the  dead, 
and  of  our  mortal  remains;  and  we  speak  of  the  ris- 
ing of  the  body  ;  wJien  it  is  not  possible  to  niatcJi  those 
ivords  in  Scripture.  Eschatology  delivers  itself  in 
our  day  differently  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  I  do 
not  mean,  in  merely  variant  speech,  but  in  difference 
of  creed.  The  Bible  keeps  the  soul  in  constant  union 
with  the  body.  Theology,  in  just  such  unconscious 
ways,  implies  their  separation. 

4.  How  astounding  this  becomes  when  passages, 
such  as  we  are  asking  for,  are  forged  by  a  false  trans- 
lation. Leviticus  furnishes  one,  "  Nor  shall  ye  go  in 
to  any  dead  body  "  (xxi :  11).  Numbers  furnishes 
six,  "  He  shall  come  at  no  dead  body "  (vi :  6). 
*'  There  were  certain  men  who  were  defiled  by  the 
dead  body  of  a  man  "  (ix :  6  ;  see  also  v.  10).  "  He 
that  toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  "  (xix  :  1 1  ; 
see  also  v.  16).  We  could  increase  the  list.  Now 
these  might  be  triumphantly  obtruded,  and  the  great 
fact  fancied  that  the  Bible  does  speak  as  though  the 
body  were  separately  dead.  And  yet  it  is  the  mere 
translation-Bible.  How  surprised  many  an  English 
reader  will  become  when  he  understands  that  the 
simple  Hebrew  is,  "  A  DEAD  SOUL."  Let  me  insist 
upon  this.  We  have  declared  that  the  Bible  no 
where  contains  any  serious  instance  at  all  where  the 


112  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

body  can  be  conceived  of  as  separately  dead.  And 
here,  where  a  sharp  eye  might  suppose  that  there  is 
one,  it  turns  out  singularly  opposite.  The  body  is 
not  talked  of,  after  all,  as  dead  ;  but  the  soul  is  so 
talked  of.  And  we  shall  see,  when  we  come  to 
devote  a  special  chapter  to  the  soul,  that  there  is  a 
world  of  similar  speech  ;  that  that  which  dies  at 
death,  is  specially  the  soul ;  that  that  which  comes  up 
at  the  resurrection,  is  specially  the  sleeping  soul ;  that 
that  whose  sleep  is  death,  is  the  soul  even  more  than 
the  body ;  and  that  that  which  is  precipitated  into 
hell,  is  the  soul  in  its  first  surprises  ;  along  with  the 
body  in  which  it  has  just  arisen  from  the  darkness  of 
the  sepulchre. 

We  must  not  anticipate,  however. 

Our  points  are  these  : — 

First,  that  death  is  spoken  of  as  an  unconscious- 
ness: (if  there  are  any  difficulties  in  this,  we  shall 
speak  of  them  in  the  next  chapter :)  second,  that  the 
body  is  not  spoken  of  as  separately  dead  :  third,  that 
the  man  dies  according  to  the  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  fourth,  that  if  there  be  any  difference  it  is 
on  the  side  of  the  soul ;  we  do  most  distinctly  hear 
of  "  a  dead  soul :"  "  Nor  shall  ye  go  in  to  a  dead 
soul"  (Lev.  xxi :  ii).  "He  shall  come  at  no  dead 
soul"  (Num.  vi .  6).  "  There  were  certain  men  who 
were  defiled  by  the  dead  soul  of  a  man :"  other  pas- 
sages, that  speak  of  "dead  bodies" (2  Chr.  xx:  21; 
Ps.  ex :  6  ;  Jer.  xxxi :  40 ;  Am.  viii ;  3),  using  indeed 
not  the  same  expression,  but  not  at  all  the  words 
dead  body  ;  using  only  a  single  vocable,  as  for  exam- 
ple, "  something  faded"  (Ps.  Ixxix:  2),  or  as  for  ex- 


The    Whole   Man   Buried.  1 1 3 

ample,  "  dead  one'  ^  (2  Ki.  viii.  5),  or  in  another  in- 
stance," exhausted  ones'  ^  (2  Chr.  xx  ;  24),  expressions 
common  to  the  whole  man  ;  or,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Rev.  xi :  8),  a  noun  meaning  wrecks  or  things 
fallen,  having  no  distinct  application,  of  course,  to 
anything  but  the  perished  or  exhausted  sufferer. 

Much  of  the  argument  suited  to  this  chapter  will, 
however,  appear  in  the  next. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Whole  Man  Buried. 

If  we  chose  to  take  advantage  of  the  dissensions 
of  theology,  on  the  principle  Divide  et  impera,  we 
might  insist  that  whoever  opposes  us  should  state  his 
theory,  and  then  we  might  unsettle  that,  and  so  evict, 
in  turn,  each  possible  hypothesis. 

For  example,  Turrettin,  assuming  what  it  would 
puzzle  him  immensely  to  conceive,  that  the  soul,  dis- 
embodied, can  still  have  place,  makes  that  place 
heaven,  and  makes  the  soul  occupy  the  same  place 
before  and  after  the  resurrection  (Tur :  Vol.  2  ;  Quaest, 
9,  p.  281).  Now  the  beggar's  soul  (Lu.  xvi  :  22;  either 
did  or  did  not  rest  in  Jiades  (see  v.  23).  If  it  did,  Tur- 
rettin is  mistaken.  If  it  did  not,  then  the  whole  scenic 
accuracy  of  the  parable  must  be  given  up  as  a  proof 
of  immortality. 

We  might  multiply  the  instances. 

We  are  so  clear,  however,  that  we  will  not  ask 
this  advantage  of  segregation.     The  point  shall  be, 

*  Simple  adjectives  without  nouns. 


114  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

Is  the  soul  immortal  or  not  ?  And  if  the  affirmative 
shift  a  little  in  their  theorizing  plans,  so  be  it.  It  is 
a  symptom  of  mistake.  But  we  will  not  tax  each 
separate  conceit  with  more  than  its  generic  difficulties. 

Now  the  difficulties  common  to  every  theory  of 
immortality  are,  first,  that  our  burial  is  spoken  of  as 
of  the  whole  man  ;  second,  of  the  whole  man  not  in 
such  a  sense  as  that  a  part  can  continue  to  live,  but, 
that  the  whole  sleeps  ;  third,  that  that  sleep  is  dream- 
less and  entire  ;  and  fourth,  that  all  the  Scripture 
that  might  seem  to  imply  that  we  are  awake,  is  insig- 
nificant in  extent,  and  easily  manageable,  on  the  other 
theory. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  the  whole  man  is  spoken  of 
as  buried.  Now  do  not  let  us  misunderstand  this. 
I  do  not  say  that  one  such  passage,  or  that  ten  such 
passages,  would  prove  anything  as  against  opposite 
texts :  but  I  wish  to  crush  by  weight  of  column.  I 
wish  to  show  that  all  the  idiom,  like  the  current  of 
the  Nore,  flows  in  but  a  single  route.  Like  the  pile 
on  velvet,  the  Scripture  can  be  smoothed  down  one 
way,  and  resists,  the  other.  Take  some  instances. 
**  Miriam  died  and  was  buried"  (Num.  xx  :  i).  ''  Aaron 
died,  and  was  buried"  (Deut.  x  :  6).  Christ  was  buried 
(i  Cor.  XV :  4).  Or,  taking  the  active  verb,  "They 
buried  Abraham"  (Gen.  xlix:  3 1).  They  ''  buried  Saul" 
(2  Sam.  ii :  5).  "  I  buried  Leah"  (Gen.  xlix  :  31).  *' I 
saw  the  wicked  buried"  (Ec.  viii :  10).  '"'  David  is  both 
dead  and  buried"  (Acts  ii :  29).  Suspecting  some 
idiosyncrasies  in  this,  try  other  expressions :  try  the 
whole  weight  of  necrological  detail.  They  killed 
him  (2Ki.  xv:  25).  They  "  embalmed  him"  (Gen.  1: 


TJlc    Whole  Man   Buried.  1 1 5 

2).  "  They  put  him  in  a  coffin"  (Gen.  1 :  26).  They 
tore  him  in  pieces  (Gen.  xxxvii:  33).  They  buried 
him  (2  Chr.  xxi :  20).  Or  try  grammatic  equivalents. 
See  if  some  more  distant  idioms  cannot  hint  at  the 
body.  *'  I  will  go  down  into  the  grave"  (Gen.  xxxvii  : 
35).  Or  read  a  little  farther,  **  I  will  go  down  .  . 
unto  my  son."  So  are  many  expressions.  He  was 
gathered  to  his  fathers  (Judges  ii :  10).  *' He  was 
gathered  to  his  people"  (Gen.  xxv  :  8).  There  is  no 
hint  that  they  were  not  all  dead  and  buried.  *'  He 
that  goeth  down  to  the  grave  shall  not  go  up"  (Job 
vii :  9).  "  If  I  wait,  the  grave  is  my  house"  (Job, 
xvii:  13).  "  They  shall  go  down  to  the  bars  of  the 
pit,  when  our  rest  together  is  in  the  dust"  (lb. 
xvii:  16).  "Yet  shall  he  be  brought  to  the  grave, 
and  shall  remain  in  the  tomb"  (lb.  xxi :  32).  "■  They 
shall  lie  down  alike  in  the  dust,  and  the  worms  shall 
cover  them"  (lb.  v  :  26). 

2.  Now,  to  preclude  all  idea  of  immortality,  the 
Bible  speaks  of  these  people  under  the  image  of 
sleep.  *'  Till  the  heavens  be  no  more,"  Job  says, 
"  they  shall  not  awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep" 
(Job.  xiv:  12).  ''Lighten  my  eyes,"  cries  out  the 
Psalmist,  "  lest  I  sleep  the  sleep  of  death"  (Ps.  xiii : 
3).  "  The  stout  hearted  are  spoiled,"  he  says  ;  "  they 
have  slept  their  sleep  "(Ps.  Ixxvi  :  5).  The  dead  are 
said  to  sleep  with  their  fathers  (i  Ki.  ii :  10;  xiv: 
20  ;  2  Chr.  ix:  31).  Stephen  "  fell  asleep."  '*  Many 
that  sleep  in  the  dust,"  prophecies  Daniel,  "shall 
awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame 
and  everlasting  contempt"  (Dan.  xii  :  2).  We  must 
not  load  our  page.     With  the  apostles  it  became  a 


Ii6  Immortality  not  in  Scripture. 

usance.  ^'  Part  remain,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep" 
(i  Cor.  XV :  6).  **  They  which  are  fallen  asleep"  (v. 
i8).  '*  Them  that  are  asleep"  (i  Thess.  iv :  13). 
*'  For  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue 
as  they  were"  {2'  Pet.  iii  :  4). 

3.  But  says  some  one,  following  each  sentence  as 
I  quote  It,  and  blotting  It  out, — That  is  but  the 
sleep  of  the  body.  It  Is  like  the  rising  of  the  sun,  or 
like  the  falling  of  the  dew.  The  dew  does  not  really 
fall,  but  It  looks  that  way.  Man  does  not  really  die, 
but  beasts  do.  And  the  general  look  of  our  uncon- 
sciousness would  fully  account  for  the  rhetoric  speech. 
Grant  all  that.  But  then  there  is  a  difficulty.  Would 
not  the  Holy  Ghost  come  to  our  rescue  ?  Would 
not  the  Holy  Ghost,  when  he  came  to  didactic  utter- 
ances, set  these  things  right  ?  The  sponging  and  the 
blotting — who  more  capable  than  God  himself? 
Having  left  me  sleeping  in  the  dust,  would  he  not 
paint  again,  and  tell  me,  like  the  Shulamlte,  "  I  sleep, 
but  my  heart  waketh"  (Cant,  v:  2).  Now,  unfortu- 
nately for  my  belief  of  Immortality,  he  does  no  such 
thing.  He  follows  this  thought  of  "  sleep,"  and 
prints  it,  and  settles  It :  and  this  is  our  third  evi- 
dence. I  mean  to  note  It  rapidly.  He  tells  us  we 
are  unconscious.  He  gives  us  no  trace  that  we 
think  in  the  grave.  He  tells  us  we  do  not:  and 
leaves  us,  for  the  great  purposes  of  mercy,  only 
warned  of  a  gracious  resurrection. 

*' Why  died  I  not  from  the  womb?"  cries  the  pa- 
triarch Job.  ''  Now  should  I  have  lain  still  and  been 
quiet ;  I  should  have  slept :  then  had  I  been  at  rest." 
Is  not  the  very  idea  here,  of  soul-rest,  and  thinking- 


The    Whole   Man   Buried.  117 

unconsciousness?  **  As  a  hidden  untimely  birth,  I 
had  not  been  ;  as  infants  which  never  saw  hght." 
Blessed  be  forgetfulness  ! — that  is  his  idea.  "  There 
the  wicked  cease  from  troubling ;  and  there  the 
weary  be  at  rest.  The  small  and  the  great  are 
there  ;  and  the  servant  is  free  from  his  master. 
Wherefore  is  light  given  to  him  that  is  in  misery, 
and  life  unto  the  bitter  in  soul  ?  Which  long  for 
death,  but  it  cometh  not  ;  and  dig  for  it  more  than 
for  hid  treasure  ;  which  rejoice  exceedingly,  and  are 
glad  when  they  can  find  the  grave?"  (Job  iii :  11, 
13-22).  He  says  in  another  place,  *' I  should  have 
been  as  though  I  had  not  been"  (Job  x:  19).  He 
speaks  of  the  place  as  "  a  land  of  darkness  as  dark- 
ness itself,  and  where  the  light  is  as  darkness"  (v. 
22).  He  speaks  of  the  time  as  the  whole  period 
"till  the  heavens  be  no  more"  (xiv :  12).  And  he 
seems  to  take  the  ground  of  entire  non-existence  : 
that  till  the  time  of  the  blessed  resurrection,  even 
God  shall  not  find  us ;  "  Thou  shalt  seek  me  in  the 
morning,  but  I  shall  not  be"  (vii  :  21).  Foreman 
dieth,  and  wasteth  away:  yea,  man  giveth  up  the 
ghost,  and  where  is  he  ?"  (xiv:   11). 

And  lest  any  one  say,  Job  was  not  inspired,  let 
us  appeal  to  the  Psalms.  "  In  death  there  is  no  re- 
membrance of  thee.  In  the  grave  who  shall  give 
thee  thanks?"  (Ps.  vi :  3).  They  put  it  in  still  more 
methodic  light; — **  What  profit  is  there  in  my  blood, 
when  I  go  down  to  the  pit  ?  Shall  the  dust  praise 
thee  ?  Shall  it  declare  thy  truth  ?"  (Ps.  xxx :  9). 
"  Wilt  thou  show  wonders  to  the  dead  ?  Shall  the 
dead  arise  and  praise  thee  ?     Shall  thy  loving  kind- 


Ii8  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

ness  be  declared  in  the  grave  ?  or  thy  faithfulness  in 
destruction  ?  Shall  thy  wonders  be  known  in  the 
dark?  and  thy  righteousness  in  the  land  of  forget- 
fulness  ?"  (Ps.  Ixxxviii  :  10-12).  And  then  the  re- 
frain long  afterward  ;  "  The  dead  praise  not  the 
Lord,  neither  any  that  go  down  into  silence"  (Ps. 
cxv :   17). 

Solomon  is  even  still  stronger ; — "  The  dead  know 
not  anything"  (Ec.  ix:  5).  "There  is  no  knowledge 
in  the  grave"  (Ec.  ix  :   10). 

4.  And  now,  in  the  fourth  place,  we  are  to  con- 
sider those  passages  that  seem  to  contradict  all  this ; 
and  first  the  parable  of  Dives. 

We  are  teaching  that  man  is  unconscious  in  the 
grave.  This  parable  is  speaking  as  though  death 
were  alive  with  history.  Let  us  listen,  **  The  rich 
man  also  died,  and  was  buried  ;  and  in  hell  he  lifted 
up  his  eyes,  being  in  torment,  and  saw  Abraham  afar 
off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom"  (Lu.  xvi :  22,  23). 
This  cannot  be  after  the  judgment,  for  he  distinctly 
says,  "  I  pray  thee,  therefore,  father,  that  thou 
wouldest  send  him  to  my  father's  house  ;  for  I  have 
five  brethren ;  that  he  may  testify  unto  them,  lest 
they  also  come  into  this  place  of  torment"  (vs.  27,  28). 

Now  there  can  be  nothing  fairer,  as  to  this  para- 
ble, than  to  reply,  that  if  the  favorers  of  immortality 
will  say  what  this  parable  means,  and  choose  an  in- 
terpretation for  it,  we  will  meet  them  on  their  own 
ground.  Is  it  a  parable  at  all  ?  Some  say,  No  ; 
because  a  man's  name  is  given.  Let  us  choose, 
therefore,  two  grand  methods  of  interpretation  ;  one 
as  fable,  and  the  other  as  fact ;  in  other  words,  one 


TJic    Whole  Man   Buried.  119 

as  the  Unjust  Steward,  commended  solely  at  a  single 
point  ;  the  other  as  the  marriage  of  Cana  of  Galilee, 
true  throughout,  and  responsibly  told,  as  a  strict 
detail  of  an  accomplished  history. 

Our  blessed  Lord  had  been  insulted.  He  had 
been  told,  "  This  man  receiveth  sinners  and  eateth 
with  them"  (Lu.  xv  :  2).  He  began  a  series  of  par- 
ables. The  point  of  the  parables  was,  The  True 
Believer.  He  begins  gently.  We  have,  pictured 
first,  the  hundred  sheep.  He  does  not  denounce  the 
ninety  and  nine.  He  hovers  only  over  the  lost  one, 
and  brings  him  forth  as  rescued — the  true  Christian 
Believer.  So  the  lost  money  ;  as,  in  another  chap- 
ter, the  publican  (xviii :  13)  ;  though  there  he  begins 
to  reflect  more  upon  the  pampered  Pharisee.  So 
the  prodigal  (xv  :  ii);  but  now  with  still  bitterer 
reflections,  making  the  self-righteous  more  and  more 
ungodly;  so  that  the  elder  brother  stands  out  in  the 
baseness  of  impenitent  life.  And  so  at  last,  Dives. 
The  whole  group  is  painted  to  convict  the  Pharisee. 
And  when  at  last  we  are  told  of  the  purple  and  fine 
linen,  it  is  infinitely  far  from  Christ  to  be  speaking  of 
the  luxury  of  rich  men.  He  is  speaking  of  the  ascet- 
ic Jew^ish  worshipper.  The  "  purple"  is  a  false  roy- 
alty. The  '*  linen"  is  a  vain  righteousness.  And 
the  "faring  sumptuously"  is  the  condition  of  the 
ninety-nine  just  persons.  And  Lazarus  is  the  Elea- 
zur  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  not  a  real  man  at  all,  but 
Eleaziir,  the  Lord  my  help  ;  just  the  very  picture, 
in  his  poverty,  and  rags,  of  the  true  believer — of  that 
illustrious  line,  the  Sheep,  the  Money,  and  the  Publi- 
can, the   Prodigal,  and  the  Unjust    Steward,   all  of 


120  Immortality   not   in    Scripture, 

whom  picture  in  common  forms  the  contrition  and 
the  up-waking  of  the  gospel. 

Now  let  our  opponents  choose.  Shall  this  narra- 
tive, like  that  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  be  confined  to 
a  single  point ;  and  shall  that  point  be  a  trust  to  the 
blood  of  Abraham  ?  Shall  all  the  dressings  of  the 
fable  be  a  mere  device  ;  and  the  main  lesson  be,  that 
when  Dives  died,  Abraham  was  afar  off,  and  the  beg- 
gar-man reposing  in  his  bosom  ?  or  shall  we  bring  in 
all  the  hard  accessories  ?  In  one  way  the  meaning  is 
complete.  The  Unjust  Steward  can  be  taken  in  his 
allegoric  point,  viz.,  making  friends  in  his  life-time 
of  the  gifts  and  the  grace  which  in  his  ungodly  state 
are  to  him  "  another  man's"  :  and  so  Dives  can  be 
treated  solely  in  his  disappointed  state  of  disinheri- 
tance from  Abraham.  But  let  our  opponents  choose. 
As  to  the  verity  that  is  actually  meant  we  insist  upon 
a  choice  being  made.  Is  the  whole  an  accurate  fact  ? 
Or  is  it,  like  the  tale  of  the  Bramble  (Jud.  ix  :  14),  a 
free-wrought  fable  ? 

If  it  be  an  accurate  fact,  let  there  be  no  trifling, 
of  course.  If  Dives  lifted  up  his  eyes,  where  did  he 
get  his  eyes  ?  Or  if  that  may  be  thought  to  be  a 
figure,  let  us  notice  how  much  need  there  is  of  figures 
everywhere.  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  "  tor- 
ment" ?  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  **  flame"  ? 
Wliat  are  we  to  think  of  the  ''  water"  ?  What  are  we 
to  think  of  the  "  tongue"  ?  and  of  the  cooling  of  the 
tongue?  and  of  the  '*  gulf  fixed"?  and  of  "Lazarus 
afar  off"?  and  of  the  "  bosom  of  x'\braham"  ?  Ifthese 
things,  on  account  of  all  three  men  being  spirits,  must 
be  relegated  into  the  realm  of  figure,  where  is  the 


The    Whole   Man    Buried.  121 

limit?  and  why  may  not  all  be?  especially  as  there 
are  parables  of  Christ  that  are  not  even  allegorically 
just,  except  in  one  single  phase  (Matt,  xx :  10,  Lu. 
xvi:  8). 

Our  account,  therefore,  of  the  Pharisee  is,  that  he 
is  unconscious  and  dead;  and  that  this  scene  in  his 
sepulchre  is  of  high  rhetoric  fiction.  It  merely  brings 
out  his  dire  mistake  about  the  blood  of  Abraham, 
and  about  the  publicans  and  harlots  that  would  get 
into  his  bosom  sooner  than  he.  It  is  merely  a  notice 
of  what  he  would  see  and  know  if  he  were  to  wake 
up  in  the  dead  grave  and  understand  his  history. 
To  speak  of  the  liberties  taken,  I  would  mention  the 
very  word  hades  as  nowhere  else  spoken  of  as  a  place 
of  torment.  Gesenius,  therefore,  argues  that  it  may 
mean  such  a  place,  but  has  the  significant  word  seinel^ 
and  a  reference  to  this  single  passage.  Moreover, 
the  word  itself  ought  to  be  looked  at.  I  notice  the 
active  form  unseeing,"^  rather  than  the  word  unseen  ; 
and,  therefore,  boldly  teach  that  the  parable  of  Dives 
is  the  waking  up  of  dead  ghosts,  to  put  on  the  cere- 
ments of  their  clay,  and  stalk  the  stage  in  religious 
fiction. 

If  any  one  begs  that  we  bring  forward  anything 
else  that  will  match  it  in  the  Holy  Bible,  we  hurry 
on  now  to  other  passages.  *'  Hell  from  beneath  is 
moved  for  thee  to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming  :  it  stir- 
reth  up  the  dead  for  thee,  even  all  the  chief  ones  of 

*  This  is  worthy  of  study.  If  the  Greek  word  hades  means  7ai- 
seeuig,  and  the  Hebrew  word  {Sheol)  means  nothing  to  the  contrary, 
it  would  require  great  ingenuity  to  show  that  the  testimony  of  the 
name  is  not  quite  on  the  side  of  unconsciousness. 

6 


122  Immortality   not   in   Scripture, 

the  earth ;  it  hath  raised  up  from  their  thrones  all 
the  kings  of  the  nations.  All  they  shall  speak  and 
say  unto  thee,  Art  thou  also  become  weak  as  we  ? 
art  thou  become  like  unto  us  ?  Thy  pomp  is  brought 
down  to  the  grave,  and  the  noise  of  thy  viols  :  the 
worm  is  spread  under  thee,  and  the  worms  cover 
thee.  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O  Lucifer, 
son  of  the  morning  !  "  (Is.  xiv  :  9-12).  In  the  Rev- 
elation, "  I  saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of  them  that 
were  slain  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testimony 
that  they  held"  (Rev.  vi  :  9).  See  now  how  difficul- 
ties cluster.  Understand  ail  this  as  an  allegory,  and 
everything  lies  smooth.  "  Under  the  altar"  means 
under  the  hope  of  blessed  immortality  that  the  altar 
has  achieved.  "  White  robes'*  means  the  same  thing 
— laid  away  and  buried  with  them  to  be  put  on  at 
the  last  day.  Crying  means  the  impatient  appeal 
of  the  blood  of  dead  saints  for  speedy  justice.  Rcst- 
///^means  unconscious  death  :  and  the  date,  precisely 
our  date  :  for  now  read  the  whole.  "  And  white 
robes  were  given  unto  every  one  of  them  ;  and  it  was 
said  unto  them  that  they  should  rest  yet  for  a  little 
season,  until  their  fellow  servants  also,  and  their 
brethren  that  should  be  slain  as  they  were,  should 
be  fulfilled"  (v  :  11).  But  now  quote  all  this  of  their 
immortality,  and  what  do  we  behold  ?  Why  first,  we 
behold  dead  souls,  just  as  Dives  must  behold  Lazarus, 
though  he  was  a  disembodied  spirit :  second,  they 
are  under  the  altar;  third,  they  cry;  fourth,  they 
speak  about  their  blood,  though  they  are  disem- 
bodied spirits  ;  fifth,  they  have  white    robes ;  and 


TJic    Whole   Man   Buried.  123 

sixth,  they  rest,  as  though  they  were  in  durance  vile, 
though  they  are  in  receipt  of  their  fehcity  ! 

Job  says,  '*  Dead  things  are  formed  from  under 
the  water,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof"  (Job  xxvi  : 
5).  We  pass  it  as  though  it  were  trivial,  but  I  hap- 
pened to  dig  into  the  sentence,  and  there  comes 
up  another  case.  "  Dead  things"  are  shades.  "  Are 
formed"  means  tremble.  The  language  reads,  *'  The 
shades  tremble  under  the  waters,  and  under  the  in- 
habitants thereof"  (Job  xxvi :  5)  ;  the  meaning  being, 
that  the  whole  universe  bows  homage  to  its  Creator  ; 
and,  as  in  the  other  cases,  bold  rhetoric  art  makes 
even  the  dead  join  the  spectacle,  and  down  deep 
below  the  very  monsters  of  the  sea  (Jon.  ii :  5,  6)  the 
Oriental  hades  tremble  in  its  dark  inhabitants. 

Escaping,  therefore,  from  rhetoric,  which  may 
linger  more  in  doubt,  our  opponent  may  bring  forth 
the  celebrated  case  of  the  Thief  (Lu.  xxiii  :  43). 

But  that  we  will  not  linger  upon,  because  it  is 
disposed  of  by  the  single  remark,  that  the  passage  is 
absolutely  ambiguous. 

If  I  say  in  English,  And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Veri- 
ly I  say  unto  thee  to-day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in 
paradise,  it  is  a  positive  equivoque  as  to  whether  "  I  say 
to-day,"  or  "  thou  shalt  be  to-day  ;"  and  ten  thousand 
years  would  not  settle  it  as  a  point  of  grammar.  But 
the  question  may  be  asked,  Will  the  Greek  help  us  ? 
or  will  the  logic  of  the  passage  afford  any  solution? 

As  to  the  Greek,  it  has  like  ambiguity  with  the 
English,  as  may  be  learned  from  the  fact  that  men 
like  Hesychius  (see  Wetstein  and  Grotius  in  loc),  with 
no  point  to  gain,  have  made  Christ  mean,  ''  I  say  to- 


124  Immortality   not  in    Scripture. 

day."  It  may  be  set  down  as  prejudice  on  our  part, 
but  we  think  the  Greek  has  less  ambiguity  than  the 
EngHsh.  For  example,  Christ  says,  *'  Verily  I  say 
unto  thee,  This  day.  .  thou  shalt  deny  me  thrice." 
Here,  though  the  expression  ^'  this  night"  following 
immediately  after,  makes  mistake  more  impossible, 
the  word  **  that,"  as  will  be  noticed,  is  put  carefully 
in : — I  say  unto  thee  that  this  day,"  etc.  (Mar. 
xiv :  30).  The  same  guard  is  used  in  Luke  iv:  21, 
and  in  Luke  v :  26  (see  also  other  passages,  e.  g.  Lu. 
xix  :  9).  Moreover,  the  adverb  is  moved  to  a  less 
exposed  position  (Lu.  xxii :  34),  and  there  are  other 
marks  (Lu.  xiii :  32  ;  Heb.  v  :  5).  But  we  will  not 
insist  on  the  grammar  (see  also  Acts  xxvi :  29),  nor 
much  on  the  logic.  We  only  think  that  the  instinct 
that  approaches  a  sufferer,  and  says,  "  I  will  not  trou- 
ble you  now  ;  but  when  you  come  to  think  of  this 
scene,  Lord  remember  me"  etc.  (v.  42), — might  con- 
sider itself  gloriously  answered,  if  the  Great  Sufferer 
exclaimed,  Thou  mayest  trouble  me  now ;  I  will 
settle  it  at  once  :  "  I  say  unto  thee  to-day"  etc.  etc. 
The  Greek  is,  to  say  the  very  least,  ambiguous  ;  and 
is  therefore  perfectly  worthless  to  withstand  on 
either  side  great  evidences  against  it. 

We  grapple,  therefore,  with  another  sentence: — 
"  Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even  Moses  showed 
at  the  bush,  when  he  called  the  Lord  the  God  of 
Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob.  For  he  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
living  (Lu.  xx  :  37,  38). 

This  will  be  a  grand  sentence  ;  for  it  will  be  plain 
and  positive  which  ever  way  the  victory  turns.     It  is 


The    Whole   Maji   Buried.  125 

not  that  it  is  a  sentence  of  our  Lord's:  for  that,  past 
all  peradventure,  makes  not  a  particle  of  difference. 
*' All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  It 
is,  that  there  is  here  no  poetic  flight,  or  flash  of  a 
dreamy  rhetoric.  It  is  all  prose.  It  is  in  the  tread 
of  a  grave  debate.  It  is  under  the  weight  of  a  na- 
tional question.  It  is  under  the  spur  of  a  grave  op- 
portunity for  truth.  And  it  is  under  the  eye  of  a 
large  assembly  of  the  people,  waiting  eagerly  for  the 
expected  answer. 

Now,  how  possibly  can  I  maintain  my  theory? 
I  say,  Abraham  is  dead.  And  not  only  so,  but  he  is 
extinct  from  thinking.  If  he  has  a  soul,  it  is  a  dead 
soul,  committed  to  the  keeping  of  God  who  gave  it. 
He  is  in  no  manner  of  sense,  as  a  present  patriarch, 
alive.  And  yet  our  Saviour  does  most  distinctly 
teach,  as  against  the  thought  of  the  Sadducee,  first, 
that  there  is  a  God  of  Abraham,  and  second,  and  in 
a  way  that  is  a  reason  in  the  case,  "  He  is  not  a  God 
of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living-." 

How  possibly  can  we  survive  such  a  distinct  ra- 
tiocination ? 

It  is  fair  to  ask.  What  is  the  ratiocination  ?  In 
fact,  can  anything  be  fairer  ?  What  was  our  Lord 
attempting  to  prove?  How  if  it  turns  out  that  this 
passage  can  be  swept  into  the  list  of  proofs  for  us? 
Our  Lord  is  defejiding  the  resurrection.  Imagine 
a  case.  Suppose  our  Lord  was  not  defending  the 
resurrection.  Suppose  he  were  defending  immor- 
tality. Suppose  he  were  to  argue,  "  I  am  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob."     Those  patriarchs  must  every  one  of  them 


126  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

be  alive  ;  "  for  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of 
the  living."  And  suppose  the  answer  came,  Not  so, 
Lord  ;  but  there  is  a  glorious  resurrection;  and  the 
promise,  "  1  am  the  God  of  Abraham"  is  incontesti- 
bly  fulfilled  ;  not  by  his  hovering  like  a  sprite,  but 
by  his  ascending  among  the  blest ;  not  in  this  pass- 
ing.age,  but  in  that  glorious  period  when  we  are  to 
be  assembled  beyond  the  tomb.  Could  Christ's  ar- 
gument stand  out  against  such  a  reply? 

But  suppose  it  were  different.  Suppose  it  were 
for  the  *'  resurrection"  (v.  33).  Suppose  it  were  just 
what  it  was.  How  complete,  then,  Hke  all  the  preg- 
nant ratiocinations  of  our  Master  (see  Matt,  xxi :  23, 
24  ;  xxii :  21).  *'  Few  and  evil  have  the  days  of  my 
life  been,"  says  the  patriarch  Jacob.  Now,  says  our 
Lord,  God  was  the  God  of  Jacob.  What  is  the  use 
of  having  a  God,  if  that  was  all  the  record  of  the  an- 
cient patriarch  ?  God  is  the  God  of  every  man,  rec- 
torally.  But  God,  to  be  the  God  of  any  one  as  his 
good  Father,  must  provide  him  better  than  Jacob 
had.  And,  therefore,  there  must  be  more  of  Jacob. 
Instead  of  an  argument  for  immortality,  it  is  an  ar- 
gument the  other  way  ;  for  it  argues  that  there  would 
be  no  chance  to  give  Jacob  a  better  life  unless  he 
rose  again,  which  would  be  palpably  untrue.  Jacob, 
according  to  our  opponent's  plan,  is  now  enjoying 
more  than  enough  to  balance  all  his  misery  ;  and  I 
will,  in  parting,  give  this  slight  touch  too  to  the  pas- 
sage, that  in  the  third  account  of  the  scene,  viz., 
that  of  the  philosophic  Luke,  he  remembers  another 
clause  that  he  had  heard  reported,  viz.,  this  gloss  of 
Christ  himself  upon  what  he  was  saying, — that  the 


The    Whole   Man   Buried.  127 

life  he  was  speaking  of  was  a  life  that  we  had,  trea- 
sured in  God  (see  Jo.  vi :  57  ;  Col.  iii :  3)  ;  fo^  ^s  he 
chooses  to  express  it,  "  all  live  unto,  i.  e.,  in  reference 
to  (see  Greek  particle),  Hinn"  (v.  38). 

One  passage  more.  The  risen  Samuel  (i  Sam. 
xxviii:  11).  This  also  is  quoted  as  proving  that  we 
can  listen  in  our  tombs. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  Samuel  says, 
**  Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me  to  bring  me  up?"  (v. 
15),  which  agrees,  in  all  its  cast  as  a  sentence,  with 
the  proprieties  of  the  speech  in  Acts,  ''  For  David, 
after  he  had  served  his  own  generation  by  the  will 
of  God,  fell  on  sleep,  and  was  laid  unto  his  fathers, 
and  saw  corruption"  (Acts  xiii :  36). 

But  neglecting  that  ;  what  does  the  passage  in 
any  other  way  conclude?  Has  any  one  denied  that 
the  dead  can  be  raised  up  ?  Why,  our  very  doctrine 
is,  that  all  will  be  brought  up  alive  at  the  final  judg- 
ment. Was  it  a  ghost  that  Endor  saw  ?  She  says, 
Not.  The  language  is,  "  An  old  man  cometh  up ;" 
and  she  says,  "  He  is  covered  with  a  mantle.  And 
Saul  perceived  that  it  was  Samuel ;  and  he  stooped 
with  his  face  to  the  ground,  and  bowed  himself  (v. 
14).  That  the  old  man  stirred  in  his  grave  one  mo- 
ment before  he  was  lifted  up,  is  no  more  apparent 
than  that  the  millions  of  the  earth  must  be  awake,  or 
they  cannot  hear  the  final  trumpet.  No  text  can  be 
tortured,  in  all  this  narrative,  to  say  one  word  for 
immortality. 

But  on  the  contrary,  Why  did  not  Samuel  say 
something  about  his  glorious  state  ?  TJu:re  is  an  ar- 
gument that  has  not  been  enough  considered.    There 


128  Immortality  not   in    Scripture. 

have  been  a  room-full  of  the  departed,  that  have 
gone  and  come  again  ;  and  many  of  them  have  lived 
long  lives,  like  the  Shunamite's  son,  and  told  nothing. 
There  is  Jairus'  daughter.  Why  did  she  not  testify 
to  her  Deliverer  what  she  had  heard  of  him  in  Hades? 
It  may  be  said  that  they  were  forbidden.  Then  why 
was  not  that  mentioned  ?  Moreover,  scores  of  men 
that  were  healed,  refused  to  be  bound  by  any  secrecy 
(Lu.  v:  14,  15).  Why  not  some  resurrected  one? 
And  Eutychus  and  Lazarus  and  all  those  lifted  out 
of  hades — why  are  they  as  silent  as  their  sepulchres  ? 
And  why  did  the  Widow's  son,  spending  long  win- 
ters in  his  village,  tell  to  an  inquisitive  world  no  grand 
facts  of  his  immortal  living.  The  very  idea  is  im- 
possible. 

Gathering  up  our  train,  however,  we  must  prepare 
for  the  next  step.  If  the  whole  man  is  dead,  and  the 
whole  man  is  buried,  we  will  look  with  keen  avidity 
to  the  next  fact,  viz.,  a  like  uniformity  in  revelation 
as  to  the  whole  man  rising  again. 


CHAPTER    X. 

The  Whole  Man  Raised  from  the  Dead. 

In  arraying  our  argument  here,  we  will  speak  first 
of  the  single  expressions  of  Scripture,  like  those  we 
have  already  noticed  of  death  and  burial  ;  we  will 
consider,  second,  the  accent  laid  upon  our  rising ;  we 
will  consider,  third,  the  fact  of  judgment;  we  will 
consider,  fourth,  the  surprises  in  that  event ;  we  will 
consider,  fifth,  the  picking  out  of  a  DAY,  the  Judg- 


The    Whole   Man   Raised,  129 

mcnt  Day,  and  emphasizing  it  so  much  ;  and  we  will 
consider,  sixth,  those  serious  sentences  in  which  men 
are  entered  together  into  heaven  or  into  hell. 

I.  In  respect  to  what  is  first,  we  have  but  to  match 
the  sentences  which  we  quoted  at  large  in  respect  to 
our  dying.  It  appeared  that,  for  some  cause  or 
other,  the  Holy  Ghost  never  talked  of  the  body. 
We  could  balance  that  now,  if  we  found  He  did  talk 
of  it  in  the  instance  of  resurrection.  Jacob  died. 
Jacob  was  embalmed.  Jacob  was  buried.  We  could 
carry  that  much  rhetoric  speech,  and  still  believe  it 
was  the  body,  if  there  was  a  change  in  the  descrip- 
tion when  He  came  to  speak  of  our  rising.  But,  in- 
stead of  that,  the  habit  is  repeated. 

No  mortal  ever  comes  up  by  miracle  without 
coming  upas  Samuel  (i  Sam.  xxviii :  14),  or  Moses 
(Matt,  xvii ;  3),  just  as  he  comes  up  at  the  resurrec- 
tion in  the  last  day.  If  he  were  conscious  in  his 
sepulchre,  why  not  bring  Moses  up,  and  let  him  talk 
to  the  Lord  disembodied,  or  like  that  ether  that 
floated  before  the  eye  of  Eliphaz  ?  (Job  iv :  16).  Why 
create  a  body  ?  And  why  ALWAYS— and  I  beg  that 
may  be  noted  as  the  point  of  my  argument — is  the 
whole  machinery  of  Scripture  framed  on  the  notion 
of  an  undivided  man  ? 

Especially,  why  evermore  speak  of  the  inaji  as 
rising  ?  **  Now  if  Christ  be  preached  that  he  rose  from 
the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that  there  is  no 
resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  "  (i  Cor.  xv:  ii.)  Notice 
the  striking  uniformity; — *'  The  dead  are  raised  up" 
(Matt.  II  :  5).  '*  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh,  I  will  raise 
him  up  at  the  last  day"  (Jo.  vi :  54).  Lazarus  is  raised 
6* 


130  Iinnwrtality   not   in    Scripture. 

(Jo.  xii :  i).  "Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  re- 
vived" (Rom.  xiv:  9);  and  again,  '*  died,  and  was 
buried,  and  rose  again"  (i  Cor.  xv  :  4) ;  or,  a  little 
differently,  "  must  be  killed,  and  must  be  raised 
again"  (Matt,  xvi :  21).  "  Women  received  their  dead 
raised  to  life  again"  (Heb.  xi :  35) ;  and  "  all  that  are 
in  their  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth"  (Jo.  v:  28). 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood : — The  whole 
force  of  our  evidence  here  is  not  exhausted  even  in 
these  combined  quotations.  But  a  man  breathes  by 
his  lungs.  There  may  come  a  time  when  he  may 
lose  too  much  of  his  lungs  to  breathe  at  all.  Immor- 
tality is  a  question  of  Scripture.  We  may  cut  off  so 
much  of  Scripture  as  to  stop  its  breath.  We  have 
cut  off  necrological  speeches  about  the  grave.  We 
are  cutting  off  necrological  speeches  about  our  ris- 
ing. And  we  are  to  complete  our  task.  The  roots 
of  the  whole  dogma  are  possible  only  in  the  Word. 
We  are  cutting  them  off,  one  by  one.  And  as  we 
reach  the  last,  there  is  no  atom  of  sap  that  can  be 
pleaded  from  outside  tradition. 

II.  Again,  if  resurrection  be  only  of  the  body, 
why  is  it  so  constantly  harped  upon  as  everything  in 
our  history?  Death  is  never  alluded  to.  If  resur- 
rection be  only  of  the  body,  then  death  was  my 
great  birth.  I  leaped  at  once  from  shame  to  blessed- 
ness. Why  does  not  all  this  appear?  If  death  be 
only  of  the  body,  I  shoot  up,  when  that  falls,  into 
the  Hfe  of  Jesus.  Who  does  not  long  for  that?  If 
resurrection  be  only  of  the  body,  it  finds  me  an  old 
citizen  :  I  have  lived  and  reigned  with  Christ  millen- 


The    Whole   Man   Raised.  131 

niums  of  years.  And  yet  I  am  to  be  told,  that, 
though  I  have  never  hvcd  otherwise  scarce  at  all  ; 
though  the  life  I  once  Hvcd  in  the  flesh  was  not  a 
century ;  though  it  was  wretched  ;  though  it  seems 
to  me  hke  an  ugly  dream  ;  though  it  flew  by  me  Hke 
a  vision  ;  and  death  bore  me  out  of  it,  and  I  became 
perfect  at  the  grave ;  yet  that  is  not  my  **  great  day" 
at  all ;  but  the  whole  oil  of  exultation  is  to  be  poured 
out  on  the  resurrection  of  my  clay. 

Will  any  one  solve  the  riddle  ? 

What  mourners  men  have  been  at  the  idea  of 
glorification  !  "  Man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not : 
till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake  nor 
be  raised  out  of  their  sleep.  O  that  thou  wouldest 
hide  me  in  the  grave  ;  that  thou  w^ouldest  keep  me 
secret  until  thy  wrath  be  past,  that  thou  wouldest 
appoint  me  a  set  time,  and  remember  me"  (Job  xiv: 
12,  13).  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hades; 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corrup- 
tion" (Ps.  xvi :  10).  Even  the  Messiah  seems  to  have 
no  love  for  the  grave.  "  But  God  will  redeem  my 
soul  from  the  power  of  the  grave  :  for  he  shall  receive 
me"(Ps.  xlix:   15). 

Now  why  is  this  ? 

And  why,  though  the  body  is  important,  yet  bear 
down  upon  it  with  so  much  accent,  when  none  has 
been  allotted  to  the  more  giant  upstarting  of  the 
soul  ?  "  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?"  Why  cer- 
tainly, in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  But,  poor  Job  ! — 
"  All  the  days  of  my  appointed  time  will  I  wait,  till 
my  change  come"  (Job.  xiv:  14).  And  listen  to 
David, — "  But    God    will   redeem   my  soul   from   the 


132  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

power  of  the  grave  :    for  he  shall  receive  me"  (Ps. 
xlix:   15). 

And  all  this  becomes  still  more  decisive  when  Paul 
speaks  of  the  resurrection  as  the  great  '*  hope"  of  the 
believer.  ''  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope"  etc.  (Ti. 
ii ;  13).  "And  now  I  stand,  and  am  judged  for  the  hope 
of  the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our  fathers.  Why 
should  it  be  thought  a  thing  incredible  that  God 
should  raise  the  dead  ?"  (Acts  xxvi :  6,  8).  And  again, 
— "  have  hope  toward  God,  which  they  themselves  also 
allow,  that  there  shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
both  of  the  just  and  of  the  unjust"  (Acts  xxiv  :  15). 
Again,  "  What  advantageth  it  me  if  the  dead  rise 
not?"  (i  Cor.  XV :  32).  **  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope 
toward  God,  we  are  of  all  men  most  miserable"  (v.  19). 
"  They  also  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  are  per- 
ished" (v.  18).  And  again,  that  alm.ost  blasphemous 
sentence,  "  Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we 
die"  (v.  32).  I  say,  almost  blasphemous:  for  if  Paul 
really  believed  that  we  are  glorified  at  death,  and  yet 
spoke  of  our  unblameableness  (i  Thess.  iii :  13),  and 
our  confidence  (i  Jo.  ii  :  28),  and  our  redemption 
(Eph.  iv  :  30),  and  our  sanctification  (Eph.  v.  26,  27), 
and  our  adoption  (Rom.  viii :  23),  and  our  joy 
(i  Thess.  ii :  19),  and  hope  (Ti.  ii ;  13),  and  comfort 
(i  Thess.  iv:  18).  and  our  glorification  (Rom.  viii: 
17,  18),  and  our  entire  reward  and  perfectness  (Rev. 
ii  :  18),  as  all  waiting  for  us  in  our  sepulchre,  we 
would  turn  against  the  apostle  as  an  intellectual  puz- 
zle, and  judge  it  to  be  a  light  verdict,  that  gay  reply 
of  Festus,  as  he   *'  said  with  a  loud  voice,  Paul  thou 


The    Whole   Man   Raised,  133 

art  beside  thyself ;    much  learning  doth    make  thee 
mad"  (Acts  xxvi :  24). 

III.  Again,  another  very  plain  consideration: — 
What  is  the  use  of  judgment,  if  men  have  been  living 
scores  of  centuries  in  heaven  ? 

If  I  am  unconscious  in  the  grave,  and  the  clangor 
of  the  trumpet  supervenes  upon  my  dying  memory, 
I  can  understand  the  Great  White  Throne,  as  an  ap- 
parition strangely  natural,  and  the  Grand  Assize  as 
in  the  highest  degree  to  be  expected  after  the  confu- 
sions of  my  earthly  living.  If  my  neighbor,  when  he 
dies  to-night,  has  his  whole  case  left  resting  through 
the  ages  of  the  sepulchre  ;  if  there  be,  therefore,  the 
necessity  of  a  seal,  by  which  he  may  be  known  at  last 
(Eph.  iv:  30) ;  and  an  earnest  (Eph.  i  :  14);  and  a  life 
hid  with  Christ  (Col.  iii :  3)  ;  and  an  attesting  by  his 
earthly  faith  (Heb.  xi :  39) ;  I  can  understand  how 
all  this  must  be  looked  into,  when  he  comes  to  rise, 
and  how  the  hurrying  thousands  may  be  spoken  of  as 
before  a  solemn  judgment.  But  how  unspeakably 
does  all  this  puzzle  us,  if  it  be  our  body !  If  it  be 
our  body  only  that  is  missing,  and  Jehovah's  trum- 
pets are  sent  out  only  for  our  dust ;  why  make  a  court 
for  that  ?  And  why,  after  we  have  been  ages  in  hell, 
summon  us  up  by  a  herald  to  meet  a  Grand  Assize, 
simply  when  we  are  putting  on  our  body  ?  The  idea 
of  any  judgment,  therefore,  when  we  have  been  fixed 
in  our  awards  for  ages,  puzzles  our  whole  thought ; 
and  though  our  thought  is  not  the  test,  still,  as 
against  the  'proofs  that  have  been  brought,  it  will 
serve  to  give  confidence  to  men,  as  against  phantasies 
that  have  so  long  possessed  us. 


134  Iinmortality   not   in    Scripture. 

IV.  But,  fourthly,  there  is  to  be  a  waking  in  sur- 
prise (Matt.  XXV :  1 1).  How  is  that  to  be  considered 
possible  ? 

I  lie  down  to  sleep,  and  friends,  who  saw  me  sink 
into  dissolution,  know  that  I  died  in  hope.  I  had  a 
hope  full  of  immortality.  But  suppose  I  was  under 
a  grand  mistake.  Scores  of  instances,  coming  up  at 
the  last,  might  fill  the  judgment  spaces  with  terrible 
amazement.  And  this  would  plainly  seem  the  na- 
ture of  the  Bible  picture.  But  suppose  I  have  been 
in  hell.  Here  really  comes  in  sight  the  dignity  of  a 
Scriptural  refutation.  Suppose  I  have  been  glori- 
fied. Nay  rather  this — Suppose  that  I  never  died. 
Suppose  that  I  lived  right  on  ;  and  what  was  called 
death  was  the  mere  dropping  of  my  frame.  Suppose 
that  I  knew  last  night  as  much  of  fate  as  I  shall 
know  for  a  thousand  years.  What  is  meant  by  my 
surprise  ?  And  why  do  I  cry  out  in  remonstrance 
(Lu.  xiii :  25)  ;  and  tell  how  I  prophesied  (Matt,  vii  : 
22)  ;  and  ask,  "when  saw  I  thee  naked"  (Matt,  xxv : 
44)  ;  and  call,  in  sudden  tones,  and  in  an  agony  of 
anguished  disappointment,  "  Lord,  Lord,  open  unto 
us  ?"  (Luke  xiii :  25). 

All  this  has  to  be  taken  in  under  the  *'  immortal" 
theory. 

V.  Fifth,  why  is  "  that  day'  (2  Tim.  i :  18)  so  note- 
worthy ? 

When  I  died,  I  became  glorified.  I  had  never 
been  perfect  before.  I  had  always  sinned  against 
my  Redeemer.  When  I  died,  1  became  perfect. 
There  then,  if  anywhere  in  the  calendar,  I  must  ex- 
pect  to  see  my  Red  Letter.     Why  is  the  Bible  so 


The    Whole   Alan    Raised.  135 

twisted  ?  The  day  I  die  seems  sponged  out  of  the 
account ;  and  the  day  I  rise,  when  by  these  "  immor- 
tal"  notions  bUss  is  an  old  tale  ;  when  I  have  been 
glorified  for  thousands  of  years  ;  when  death  was  my 
nativity,  and  life  lies  behind  me  like  a  speck  in  the 
past, — "  that  day"  (2  Tim.  iv  :  8),  or  ''  the  day  of 
Christ"  (Phil,  i :  10),  or  the  day  of  mercy  (2  Tim.  i  : 
18),  the  day  of  hope  (Tit.  ii  :  13),  and  the  day  of  re- 
demption (Eph.  iv:  30),  the  declaration  day  (i  Cor. 
iii  :  13),  and  the  coronation  day  (2  Tim.  iv  :  8),  and 
the  inauguration  day  (2  Thess.  i:  10),  **  the  day  of 
wrath"  (Rom.  ii :  5),  the  unknown  day  (Matt,  xxiv : 
36),  ''the  great  day"  (Jude  6),  or,  as  one  apostle  ex- 
presses it,  "  The  Great  Day  of  His  Wrath"  (Rev.  vi : 
17), — is  greeted  with  a  blaze  of  ornament;  and  my 
dawn  of  glory  stands  so  unmentioned  as  to  be  almost 
forgotten.  Why  is  this  ?  The  judgment,  which  would 
be  indeed  our  life-date  if  our  theory  be  true,  treated 
as  though  it  zuere  our  life-date,  and  death,  which  is 
our  adversary's  birth,  scarce  ever  mentioned  ? 

VI.  Lastly;  why  are  the  paradise-gates  opened 
as  though  for  the  first  time  ?  Paul  says,  ''  These  all, 
having  been  attested  by  faith,  received  not  the  prom- 
ise (see  2  Pet.  iii :  4  ;  I  Jo.  ii :  25),  God,  with  refer- 
ence to  us,  having  looked  forward  to  a  something 
better,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made  per- 
fect" (Heb.  xi :  39,  40).  ''With  reference  to  us;" 
that  is,  that  Paul  may  not  enter  late  to  heaven,  and 
find  Lot  centuries  in  advance.  This  seems  the  plain 
meaning:  that  the  souls  under  the  altar  may  rest  yet 
for  a  little  season,  till  they  and  their  fellow-servants, 
and  their  brethren  also,  who   should  be  slain  as  they 


136  Immortality   7iot   in    Scripture. 

were,  should  have  their  numbers  filled  up  (Rev.  vi : 
1 1).  This  seems  the  sole  meaning.  No  Scripture  ever 
speaks  of  an  earlier  entrance  into  paradise.  And  as 
we  can  see  a  plain  reason  for  all  starting  evenly  in 
heaven  and  in  hell,  we  see  the  probableness  that  it 
should  occur  at  Judgment :  in  fact,  the  whole  beauty 
of  the  scene,  if  the  Judgment  at  the  last  actually 
consigns  the  object  of  it  either  to  pain  or  glory. 

Now  seven  quotations  more.  "  The  wicked  is  re- 
served to  the  day  of  destruction"  (Job  xxi :  30).  Again, 
'■'  They  shall  be  brought  forth  to  the  day  of  wrath" 
(ib.). ''  Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  shall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  ever- 
lasting contempt"  (Dan.  xii :  2).  "  He  shall  separate 
them  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his 
sheep  from  the  goats"  (Matt,  xxv  :  32).  "■  But  rejoice, 
inasmuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of  Christ's  sufferings ; 
that,  when  his  glory  shall  be  revealed,  ye  may  be  glad 
also  with  exceeding  joy"  (i  Pet.  iv:  13).  "  Henceforth 
there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which 
the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that 
day"  (2  Tim.  iv :  8).  "  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to 
deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptations,  and  to  reserve 
the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished" 
(2  Pet.  ii :  9). 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Whole  of  Man,  Soul. 

If  soul  has  an  analogy  with  life  in  the  bean-stalk, 
we  might  expect  that,  in  a  long  document  like  Holy 
Scripture,  if  dust  and  flesh  were  spoken  of  as  the 


The    WJiolc   of  Man,    Soul.  137 

whole  man,  so  soul  and  spirit  would  be  ;  and  this  we 
everywhere  discover  throughout  the  revelation.  The 
attempts  of  the  translators  to  conceal  it,  only  show 
the  unconscious  prejudice  which  is  a  help  to  our  posi- 
tion. It  would  be  impossible,  if  soul  and  body  were 
separate  essences,  and  if,  as  a  subsidiary  fact,  the  body 
died  on  a  certain  date,  and  the  soul  continued  animate, 
to  find  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  as  His  literary  habit, 
representing  the  soul  as  dead,  and  the  body  not  so  in 
any  single  instance.  What  are  we  to  augur,  if  this 
actually  comes  out  in  the  Hebrew  ?  and  if,  when  we 
find  it  so,  we  find  the  translators  apparently  shocked 
with  such  a  discovery,  and  smothering  it  up  in  their 
translation  ?  For  example,  what  are  we  to  think  if 
we  read  in  Leviticus,  "  Neither  shall  he  go  in  to  any 
dead  soul"  ?  (xxi :  1 1).  What  are  we  to  think  if  there 
are  scores  of  such  expressions?  (Num.  vi :  6  ;  xix  : 
II  ;  Hag.  ii :  13).  What  are  we  to  think  of  smiting 
the  soul  (Lev.  xxiv:  17,  18),  and  killing  the  soul 
(Num.  xxxi :  19),  and  slaying  the  soul  ?  (Deut.  xxvii : 
25).  What  are  we  to  think  of  metamorphosing  this 
(E.  V,)  into  slaying  ''persons,''  or  smiting  the  **  life" 
(Lev.  xxiv  :  17,  inarg)  of  anybody  ?  What  are  we  to 
think  of  the  expression,  *'  Doeg  slew  eighty-five 
souls  ?  "  (i  Sam.  xxii :  18).  Or  what  are  we  to  think  of 
the  Bible  enumerating  men  by  their  souls,  and  speak- 
ing of  *'  thirty  and  two  thousand  souls"  (Num.  xxxi : 
35),  and  of  the  translators  changing  this  usually  into 
persons  (Num.  xxxi :  35  ;  Gen.  xiv  :  21),  but  of  its  oc- 
curring so  often  that  they  feel  the  monotony  of  the 
change,  and  sometimes  keep  in  the  more  literal  word  ? 
Nay,  what  is  to  be  thought  of  this  having  stolen  into 


138  Iimnortality   not   in   Scripture. 

classic  English,  and  that  we  ourselves  should  speak  of 
so  many  thousand  souls?  letting  the  soul  stand  for 
the  man,  just  as  the  dust  does  (Ps.  xxx:  9),  and  just 
as  the  flesh  does  (Lu.  iii :  6),  in  other  corresponding 
expressions? 

Do  not  let  it  be  said,  We  can  overcome  all  this: 
for  what  are  we  to  overcome  it  with  but  the  Bible  ? 
These  adverse  appearances  are  in  the  Bible.  All 
those  other  are  in  the  Bible.  And  if  life  and  death 
and  burial,  and  rising  again,  and  judgment,  all  offer 
themselves  in  idioms,  and  all  in  ways  idiomatically 
alike,  where  are  we  to  go  to  correct  everything  ?  and 
where  get  proof  of  immortality  except  in  some  other 
texts,  which  in  some  way,  idiomatically  or  not,  will 
furnish  us  with  a  different  impression  ? 

Look  at  another  fact.  The  translators  introduce 
the  very  word  soul  as  though  it  were  a  human  ad- 
junct. They  associate  it  with  Adam.  They  say  not 
one  word  about  soul  till  man  comes  to  be  created  : 
indeed,  not  there,  in  the  first  chapter  (Gen.  i :  26) ; 
for  there  is  no  word  that  would  answer  to  it.  It  is 
not  till  the  second  chapter  (Gen.  ii:  7),  that  we  hear 
a  word  about  it ;  and  there  it  is  made  to  start,  as 
though  it  were  the  appanage  of  man.  We  have  this 
distinct  rendering  ; — "  God  formed  man  [of  the]  dust 
of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life  ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  Who 
would  ever  dream  that  the  word  was  first  applied  to 
fish  ?  We  turn  to  the  first  chapter  and  read,  "  Let 
the  waters  swarm  with  swarms  of  living  soul"  (i :  20). 
We  look  a  little  further,  and  "  God  created  great 
whales,  and  every  living  soul"  (v.  21).     We  glance 


The    Whole   of  Man,    Soul.  139 

down  the  page,  "■  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  the  Hving  soul"  (v.  24):  a  Httle  further,  "And 
God  said,  To  you  it  shall  be  for  meat,  and  to  every 
beast  of  the  earth,  and  to  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
to  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth,  in  which 
is  a  living  sour'(vs.  29,  30).  We  come  to  man,  and 
no  use  of  that  word  for  him  occurs  in  the  first  chap- 
ter. The  word  animal  {aniina,  Lat.)  seems,  at  the 
start,  to  assert  its  whole  right  to  the  name.  I  charge 
no  unfairness;  but  I  charge  unconsciousness.  I 
charge  unconscious  prejudice.  And  I  charge  that  no 
Englishman  would  know  of  these  facts,  or  would 
suppose  that  beasts  had  souls,  save  only  in  an  ac- 
commodated sense,  or  in  a  form  that  would  be  set 
down  as  secondary. 

To  resume  ;  I  am  alluding  in  all  this  to  the  fact, 
that  the  translators,  before  they  come  to  speak  of 
man  in  the  second  chapter,  smother  the  word  soul 
under  a  false  or  indifferent  translation. 

Now,  abandoning  these  bolder  points,  let  us  do 
what  we  refused  to  do  first,  i.  e.,  treat  the  soul  more 
radically.  We  would  not  do  it  first,  because  those 
bolder  things  would  serve  best,  in  limine.  When  we 
begin  to  refine,  men  stop  their  ears.  We  wished  to 
get  it  uttered  that  the  Bible  talks  of  dead  souls  ;  and 
that  it  treats  the  whole  man  as  though  he  were  dust, 
and  also  as  though  he  were  soul ;  and  that  it  mixes 
him  irreparably  with  brutes  (Ec.  iii :  19);  that  is, 
that,  unless  there  is  a  resurrection,  the  Scripture  so 
endows  us  like  brutes,  that  we  have,  as  Solomon 
states  it,  all  one  spirit  (Ec.  iii :  19) ;  and  such  insepa- 
rable unity,  that  as  the  brute  dieth,  so  dieth  also  the 


140  Immortality   7iot   in    Scripture. 

man  (ib.).  This  seems  shocking  doctrine  ;  but  so 
much  more  glorious  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ; 
and  so  much  more  intelHgible  the  treatment  of  the 
Bible,  when  it  lays  such  awful  stress  upon  the  wrath 
(Rom.  ii :  5),  and  upon  the  glory  (i  Pet.  iv  :  13),  of 
that  final  day. 

Let  us  go  back,  however.  Soul  is  too  seminal  a 
word  not  to  be  looked  into  radically  ;  and,  therefore, 
we  will  treat  the  original  image,  that  breeds  the  word 
in  so  many  of  the  languages  of  the  earth. 

And  I  begin  by  saying,  that  it  would  be  a  great 
outrage  upon  truth,  if  a  trope  were  seized  upon  to 
express  all  the  great  realities  of  being,  and  there  were 
nothing  in  that  trope,  so  fondly  gone  for,  to  express 
in  eligible  detail  the  idea  that  gendered  it. 

Breath  is  the  trope  we  are  thinking  of. 

There  is  a  strange  tenacity  with  which  thought 
has  refused  all  other  expressions. 

Let  us  inspect  but  two  languages. 

There  was  needed  a  trope  that  should  become 
the  name  for  living.  We  hardly  think  of  tropes  in 
such  a  connection.  And  we  turn  to  the  Hebrew, 
and  find  the  word  hay  ah ;  and  turn  to  the  Greek, 
and  find  the  word  zoe  ;  and  we  hardly  think  of  them 
as  any  but  original  words.  But  the  least  touch  of  a 
dictionary  reveals  the  image.  Hayah  means  Hfe,  and 
zoe  means  Hfe ;  but,  when  we  penetrate  to  the  root, 
we  find  in  both  of  them  the  idea  of  breatJdng.  Now 
that  might  be  thought  enough.  Breathing  is  a  very 
tolerable  image.  When  a  child  is  born,  breathing 
announces  that  he  is  alive  ;  and  when  the  man  is 
dying,  breathing  announces  that  he  is  not  dead.     It 


The    Whole  of  Man,    Soul.  141 

is  the  ocular  insii^nia  of  life.  But  one  would  think 
that  that  mi^^ht  end  it.  And  yet,  with  wonderful 
tenacity  of  gripe,  all  nations  seem  to  love  that  figure. 
There  comes  up  an  idea  of  soicl.  How  it  originates, 
may  be  perhaps  best  claimed  from  the  word.  But 
delaying  that,  there  comes  up  a  need  for  an  expres- 
sion ;  and  we  turn  to  the  Lexicons,  and  find,  no  lon- 
ger indeed  hayaJi  and  zoe,  for  they  are  already  appro- 
priated ;  but  we  find  other  and  similar  vocables  that 
mean  breath.  Why  is  this?  What  is  there  in  souls, 
whether  of  animals  or  men,  that  implies  breathing  ? 
And  yet  no  other  trope  is  thought  of.  We  have 
nepJiesJi  in  the  Hebrew,  and  psiiche  in  the  Greek. 
And  all  through  the  weary  way,  these  words  come 
up.  Now  it  is  an  outrage  upon  thought,  that  men 
should  stick  to  a  figure  so  closely,  and  yet  that  there 
should  not  be  some  prevailing  feature  to  make  it 
such  a  desired  expression. 

But  now  further  !  Thought  rolls  on,  and  there  is 
need  of  another  explication.  What  shall  it  be  ? 
There  is  need  of  something  higher.  Life  is  subtile 
enough,  but  there  is  life  in  a  bean.  Soul  is  dignified 
enough,  but  there  is  soul  in  a  brute.  I  do  not  mean 
anything  outside  of  soul  ;  but  it  would  be  convenient 
to  speak  of  conseience^  and  the  higher  thought  ;  and 
that  which  the  soul  possesses  above  the  range  of 
merely  sensuous  ideas.  Soul  moral  we  would  like, 
as  well  as  soul  rational  and  fleshly.  How  shall  we 
call  it  ?  How  strange  if  the  speech-builders  should 
go  with  a  bee-line  to  the  old  figure,  and  search 
whether  there  be  not  another  word  which  means 
nothing  in  the  world   but  breath,  but  which  is  thus 


142  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

far  unoccupied  ;  and  which  will  leave  the  delicious 
image,  which  seems  to  have  attracted  everybody, 
free  and  unspoken,  as  now  quite  a  different  word  for 
higher  and  still  more  ethereal  being. 

The  word  has  risen  to  the  lips  already  ;  rnah  in 
the  Hebrew,  and  pneiima  in  the  Greek  ;  translated 
out  of  both  languages  by  our  word  spirit ;  borrowed, 
as  being  our  nobler  title,  and  applied  to  God  ;  and 
yet  nothing  in  the  world  but  breath  ;  that  trope,  for 
reasons  that  must  have  been  singularly  express,  fol- 
lowing our  race  through  all  the  higher  conceptions 
of  their  created  being. 

Now  what  are  those  reasons  ? 

Let  me  pause,  however,  to  say,  that  it  would  be 
an  idle  chapter  if  I  filled  it  with  typological  conceits. 
The  reader  can  build  those  as  well  as  any  one.  If  I 
went  nakedly  to  the  trope,  and  said, — Breath  acts  so 
and  so,  and  therefore  soul,  by  reason  of  the  name, 
must  be  so  and  so,  and  that  against  the  current  of 
popular  persuasion,  men  would  laugh  at  me  ;  and, 
therefore,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  ; — I  do  not 
mean  to  prove  that  the  soul  is  not  immortal  by  mere 
lexicon  proofs  of  what  the  breath  is,  and,  therefore, 
of  what  the  soul  must  be  to  have  bred  the  figure. 
Far  otherwise.  I  mean  to  resort,  as  before,  to  Scrip- 
ture. I  mean  to  be  firm  within  it.  But,  as  Scrip- 
ture talks  of  the  soul  under  no  other  similitude  than 
breath,  I  mean  to  talk  so  also  ;  and  on  this  thread 
of  a  tropical  sense  I  mean  to  string  the  thoughts  that 
are  to  be  derived  from  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  breath  is  evanescent.  It  is  so 
with  the    bean  stalk.     It  dies  ;  and    its  hay  ah  just 


TJic    Whole  of  Man,    Soul.  143 

ceases,  and  perishes  like  a  dream  away.  Now,  listen 
to  the  Scripture  : — **  His  breath  goeth  forth  ;  he  re- 
turneth  to  his  earth  ;  in  that  very  day  his  thoughts 
perish"  (Ps.  cxliv  :  4).  We  look  into  the  Hebrew, 
and  the  word  translated  "  breath"  is  just  the  common 
one,  spirit.  The  answer,  then,  echoing  back,  Yes,  but 
it  also  means  breath,  places  us  in  just  the  position  in 
which  we  wish  to  stand.  A  word  means  breath,  and 
that  same  word,  falling  under  the  Hebrew  eye,  means 
also  spirit.  Breath  is  known  to  be  evanescent.  In 
spite  of  its  evanescent  character,  it  is  the  favorite 
word  for  spirit.  Now,  if  this  were  all,  the  inference 
would  not  be  so  complete.  But,  presently,  we  are 
thronged  with  passages  which  either  (i)  seem  utterly 
careless  whether  we  translate  breath  or  spirit,  or, 
what  is  far  higher  proof,  (2)  oblige  us  to  translate, 
spirit ;  but  imply  a  kindred  evanescence  to  that  which 
is  included  in  the  idea  of  breath. 

(i)  Of  the  former  class  is  the  text  just  quoted, 
*' His  breath  goeth  forth"  (Ps.  cxlvi  :  4).  It  would 
answer  just  as  well  to  say,  '^  His  spirit  goeth  forth." 
We  can  multiply  the  instances.  Job  says,  "  In  whose 
hand  is  the  breath  of  all  mankind"  (Job  xii :  10).  It 
might  just  as  well  be  translated,  "  In  wdiose  hand  is 
the  spirit  of  all  mankind."  "  Thou  takest  away  their 
breath,  they  die"  (Ps.  civ  :  29).  *'  Thou  takest  away 
their  spirit"  :  it  would  have  been  just  as  well.  And 
so  in  Solomon,  "  Yea,  they  have  all  one  breath"  (Ec. 
iii :  19).  *' Yea,  they  have  all  one  spirit."  In  the  Greek, 
King  James'  men  often  hesitate.  Witness  an  instance 
in  St.  James: — "  For  as  the  body,  without  the  spirit" 
— They  throw  immediately  into  the  margin,  "  The 


144  Immortality   not   in    Scripture. 

body  without  the  breath"  (Jas.  ii :  26).  And  how 
could  they  decide? 

Now  I  say,  This  negligence  of  speech  is  thoroughly 
venial,  if  the  soul  is  a  breath.  If  when  Jesus  cries, 
"  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  spirit,"  it  would 
create  no  confusion  of  speech  if  it  were  translated, 
"  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  breath"  ;  if,  in 
other  words,  spirit  were  figured  by  breath  in  the  pre- 
cise sense  in  which  Christ  was  using  it :  if  Israel  gave 
up  the  ghost  (Gen.  xlix :  33)  in  that  perishing  sense 
in  which  he  gave  up  his  breath  ;  then  it  would  make 
little  difference, — this  negligence  of  use  as  between 
the  breath  and  the  spirit.  Driven  for  our  proof  en- 
tirely to  the  words  of  Scripture,  that  man  will  be  an 
unfair  polemic,  who,  when  we  touch  the  Scripture 
language  here  and  there,  entrenches  himself  in  im- 
agined proofs  ;  when  we  are  literally  cutting  away 
all  his  evidences. 

(2)  Then  again,  the  Bible  justifies  the  figure.  It 
not  only  uses  spirit  and  breath  indiscriminately ;  it 
not  only  uses  soul  and  life  with  utter  negligence ; 
but  it  does  not  hesitate  an  instant  to  speak  of  a 
dead  soul. 

Here  is  the  place  to  notice  that  enormity. 

Abraham  speaks  constantly  of  his  soul  living 
(Gen.  xii :  13).  Lot  seems  to  have  no  other  idea  of 
his  escape  from  peril  (Gen.  xix  :  20).  The  patriarchs 
seem  to  have  no  other  idiom  so  present  in  their  lan- 
guage. And,  when  the  converse  comes  up,  and  we 
hear  of  smiting  souls  (Lev.  xxiv:  17),  and  of  smiting 
beasts'  souls  (v.  18),  and  of  cutting  off  souls  (Ex.  xii : 
15),  and  of  that  strongest  of  all   expressions,  "dead 


TJie    Whole   of  Man,    Soul.  145 

souls"  (Lev.  xxi  :  1 1  ;  Num.  vi  :  6),  as  answering  en- 
tirely to  the  idea  of  the  loathsome  corpse  (Num.  ix  : 
10)  by  touching  which  the  IsraeHtes  might  be  de- 
filed,— we  have  certainly  gone  a  good  deal  farther 
than  the  negligent  mixing  of  soul  and  breath;  and 
have  reached  that  other  point,  namely,  that  the  whole 
man  is  talked  of  boldly  as  though  he  were  evanes- 
cent spirit. 

2.  Let  me  speak  of  this  under  a  second  head. 

That  the  soul  is  figured  under  the  name  of  breath, 
requires  a  word  of  explanation  before  we  can  teach 
thereby  that  the  soul  is  therefore  inseparable  from 
the  body.  That  the  breath,  in  a  certain  intelligible 
way,  is  also  inseparable  from  the  body,  does  not  for- 
bid the  speech  that  the  breath  has  left  the  body. 
We  say  that  the  hfe  has  left  the  palm-tree.  But 
what  do  we  mean  ?  We  mean  that  the  two  things, 
body  and  breath ;  or  the  two  things,  viz.  life  and  the 
palm-tree, — are  inseparable  in  the  very  highest  way; 
that  is,  not  only  cannot  the  breath  go  out,  and  exist, 
or  similarly,  not  only  cannot  the  life  leave  the  palm 
and  continue  to  be, — but  the  palm  cannot  exist 
either.  The  life  has  gone  out  like  a  spark  ;  and  the 
man  and  the  tree  have  lost  their  being.  Now  till  the 
Bible  taught  us  differently  this  is  what  we  would  in- 
fer from  the  departure  of  the  spirit.  The  spirit  goes 
out  (Ps.  cxlvi :  4) ;  the  spirit  is  given  up  (Job  xi : 
20) ;  the  spirit  is  departing  (Gen.  xxxv :  18) ;  or,  in  a 
rare  case  or  two,  returns  (i  Ki.  xvii :  22)  ;  or  comes 
back  (Lu.  viii :  55),  after  returning  to  God  who  gave 
it  (Ec.  xii :  7) ;  and  if  left  to  ourselves,  we  would 
treat  that  like  the  oak  tree,  and  regard  the  depar- 
7 


T46  Imuwrtality   not   in    Scriptiire, 

ture  of  life  like  the  departure  of  breath  from  the  liv- 
ing animalism.*^ 

But,  luckily,  the  Bible  is  very  communicative.  It 
does  not  leave  us  to  guess,  but  favors  this  very  sup- 
position. 

In  the  first  place,  it  makes  soul  inseparable  by 
dignifying  it  often  as  the  whole  name  for  the  person. 
"Seventy  souls"  (Jud.  ix  :  5).  "Thirty  souls"  (xx  : 
39).  "Eighty-five  souls"  (i  Sam.  xxii :  18).  Our 
translators  smother  the  idiom  (Num.  xxxi :  35) :  some- 
times, however,  it  is  allowed  to  come  out  (Gen.  xlvi : 
15,  18,  22,  25-27).  It  is  a  favorite  expression  of  the 
Bible.  Just  as  animals  are  called  lives  (Gen.  xxxvii: 
20  ;  Ps.  civ:  25),  so  men  are  called  souls.  And,  as  a 
further  step  in  the  investigation,  soul  is  a  favorite 
name  for  self  (see  Gesenius).  Indeed  there  is  no  other 
expression  in  the  Hebrew  to  answer  at  all  to  this 
personal  idea  (Job  ix  :  21  ;   Ps.  iii  :  3  ;  Is.  li :  23). 

But  further  ;  soul  is  ever  on  the  lips  when  in- 
spired men  need  a  word  for  life  (Lam.  v  :  9,  Job  ii :  4, 
Jo.  x:  11).  This  puzzles  the  translators.  In  our 
view  the  thing  is  manageable.  If  soul  is  answered 
to  by  the  expiration  of  breath,  then  it  is  the  essence 
and  whole  of  that  subtile  thing  called  living.  In  fact 
all  these  terms  are  interchangeable.  Spirit  is  soul, 
and  more.  Soul  is  mind,  and  more.  Soul  is  life,  and 
more.  And  life  is  more  than  vegetable  life,  and  dif- 
ferent from  dust,  though  we  cannot  conceive  of  life 
but  as  dwelling  in  a  body.  To  us,  therefore,  all  the 
Bible  equivoques  become  matter  of  instruction.  "  Take 
no  thought  for  your  soul  (j)suche),  what  ye  shall  eat 

*  Judg.  XV :  19  ;  I  Sam.  xxx  ;  12  ;  i  Ki.  x  :  5. 


TJlc    Whole   of  Alan,    Soul.  147 

or  what  yc  shall  drink"  (Matt,  vi :  25).  The  trans- 
lators drop  the  word,  of  course.  And  they  dislocate 
sentences.  Our  Saviour,  in  a  brief  context,  declares, 
**  For  whosoever  will  save  his  soul,  shall  lose  it ;  but, 
whosoever  shall  lose  his  soul  for  my  sake  and  the 
Gospel's,  the  same  shall  save  it"  (Mar.  viii  :  35) ;  and 
immediately  adds, — "  For  what  shall  it  profit  a  man  if 
he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ? 
Or  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  ?  " 
King  James  translates  differently  in  one  clause  and 
the  other. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood  :  we  are  not  sure  we 
would  not  translate  some  of  these  clauses  as  they  have 
done.  We  would,  but  for  certain  specialties  of  exe- 
gesis.'" But  that  is  neither  here  nor  there.  What  we 
are  protesting  against  is,  such  a  popular  belief  as  sways 
languages,  and  has  erected  such  barriers  of  thought  as 
between  the  soul  and  the  life  of  the  mammal. 

The  Bible  boldly  says,  The  soul  dies  (Jud.  xvi :  30  ; 
Job  xxxi  :  39  ;  Ps.  Ixxviii :  50).  It  says  that  it  goes 
down  into  the  grave  (Ps.  xxx  :  3  ;  Ixxxvi  113;  Acts  ii  : 
31).  It  vacates  it  of  all  its  consciousness  (Job  X  :  22; 
Ps.  vi :  5  ;  cxlvi :  4).  And  if  it  says  that  it  de- 
parts, it  is  as  the  breath  departs.  God  is  the  former 
of  our  bodies  because  they  are  framed  of  dust,  and 
give  back  the  dust  again  after  they  are  dead.  But  he 
is  the  father  of  our  spirits  ;   not   only  because  they 

*  We  are  inclined  to  the  belief  that  wishing  to  save  one's  soul  means 
having  no  higher  motive  ;  and  that  losing  one's  soul  means,  as  by  con- 
trast with  a  higher  and  nobler  object  ;  and  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
passage  is  that  a  man  is  not  saved  till  he  catches  sight  of  something 
higher  than  mere  salvation. 


148  Immortality   7iot   in   Scripture, 

possess  his  likeness,  but  because  they  go  back  into 
his  hand  ;  that  is,  because  there  is  nothing  to  survive 
that  we  know  of,  but  His  hand's  efficiency. 

So  much  for  the  second  point.  Let  me  conclude 
it  in  the  words  of  Scripture.  "  If  He  set  his  heart 
on  Himself;  if  He  take  to  Himself  His  spirit  and 
His  breath,  all  flesh  would  breathe  out  (expire)  to- 
gether, and  man  would  return  to  the  dust  "  (Job 
xxxiv:   14,  15). 

3.  Now,  we  have  but  to  imagine  that  all  animals 
were  brutes,  to  bring  out  a  third  point,  viz.,  that, 
taking  the  document  of  Scripture  as  it  is,  all  man- 
kind would  be  perfectly  reconciled  to  the  belief  in 
souls  as  though  they  were  evanescent  like  the  breath. 
I  am  sure  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  have  any 
other  idea.  We  have  seen  that  souls  begin  with 
fishes  (Gen.  i :  20).  Swarms  of  living  souls  are  our 
first  notice  of  this  great  anti-type  of  breath.  The 
word  is  never  idle.  It  occurs  four  times  in  this  very 
chapter.  It  occurs  never  in  this  first  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis in  connection  with  man.  It  occurs  just  as  it 
would  occur  if  the  animating  principle  that  makes 
the  brute,  were,  just  as  that  word  animal  declares,  a 
soul  under  the  image  of  breath.  And  as  it  is  an  un- 
natural conceit  that  that  soul  should  float  off,  and 
live  separate  after  the  animal  dies,  I  think  everybody 
would  assent  to  the  belief  that,  if  man  were  out  of 
the  way,  the  soul,  wherever  it  is  mentioned,  might 
be  likened  to  our  breathing  life,  a  thing  hanging  up- 
on our  breath,  and  a  thing  that  might  be  conceived 
as  vanished,  when  the  eye  glazes,  and  we  breathe  out 
our  Hfe  into  the  air. 


TJie    Whole   of  Man,    Soul.  149 

And  why  should  man  stand  in  the  way  ? 

I  beg  it  may  be  noticed  that  all  the  Israelitish 
books  speak  of  the  brutes  as  having  souls.  There 
is  never  a  hesitation.  If  there  is  any  halting  of  a 
verse  to  give  beasts  this  exalted  gift,  it  is  found  to 
be  by  the  translators.  "  Any  living  soul  that  is  in  the 
waters,"  says  Leviticus  (xi  :  10).  "  And  with  every 
living  soul,"  says  the  Almighty,  ''  that  is  with  you  ; 
of  the  fowl,  of  the  cattle  and  of  every  beast  of  the 
earth  with  you  ;  from  all  that  go  out  of  the  ark,  to 
every  beast  of  the  earth"  (Gen.  ix :  10).  The  cases 
are  many  (see  Gen.  ii :  19).  "  This  is  the  law  of  the 
beasts,  and  of  the  fowl,  and  of  every  living  soul  that 
moveth  in  the  waters,  and  of  every  soul  that  creep- 
eth  upon  the  earth"  (Lev.  xi  :  46). 

The  position,  let  it  be  noticed,  is,  that  if  these 
broad  passages,  that  seem  to  introduce  the  very  idea 
of  soul  for  the  first  time,  were  unincumbered  with 
the  instance  of  man,  the  verdict  would  be  an  easy 
one.  We  would  all  exclaim.  The  soul  departs  like 
the  breath  ;  and  it  is  its  ceasing  like  the  breath,  that 
has  made  the  expiration  from  the  lungs  so  favorite  a 
type  of  what  is  animate  in  creation. 

But  now  for  the  easy  retort,  that  man  is  not  out 
of  the  way.  Man  is  the  great  mammal.  Man  is 
heaven-wide  from  the  brute.  And  it  is  reasonable 
that  this  nobler  animation  should  be  endowed  with  a 
great  soul  that  does  not  succumb  to  the  changes  and 
chances  of  mortality. 

But  let  it  be  considered.  Is  not  this  mere  philos- 
ophizing? Notice  what  we  have  said.  Our  appeal 
is  to  the  Bible.     Man,   Scripturally,  is  a  wonderful 


150  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

chief.  But  we  get  that  out  of  the  word  of  God. 
Man,  Scripturally,  is  to  live  in  Paradise.  But  must 
we  not  get  him  there  in  a  Bibhcal  way?  Man,  Scrip- 
turally, is  to  be  raised  again.  Now  we  have  said  all 
along.  We  insist  on  what  is  said  in  Scripture ;  and, 
as  Scripture  does  not  say  we  are  immortal,  we  insist 
that  the  soul  of  man  shall  be  confounded  with  the 
brute,  except  in  those  precise  respects  in  which  we 
are  taught  otherwise  in  the  word  of  God. 

And  that  perishableness  is  not  one  of  those  re- 
spects, we  prove  by  showing  how  the  Bible  delights 
to  mix  men  with  brutes  in  speaking  of  their  spirits. 
"  One  soul  of  five  hundred"  says  the  Almighty  ;  "  of 
the  persons,  and  of  the  beeves,  and  of  the  asses,  and 
ofthe  sheep"  (Num.  xxxi:  28).  These  blendings  occur 
on  great  occasions  of  divine  administration.  "  Behold 
I  destroy  all  flesh  wherein  is  a  spirit  of  life,"  says  God, 
(Gen.  vi:  17).  And  we  learn  that  "  All  in  whose 
nostrils  was  the  breath  of  a  spirit  of  life,  of  all  that 
was  in  the  dry  land,  died"  (Gen.  vii :  22).  "This  is 
the  token  of  the  covenant,"  says  God,  "  which  I  make 
between  me  and  you,  and  every  living  soul  that  is 
with  you,  for  perpetual  generations"  (ix  :  12).  *'  And 
the  bow  shall  be  in  the  cloud ;  and  I  will  look  upon 
it,  that  I  may  remember  the  everlasting  covenant 
between  God  and  every  living  soul  of  all  flesh  that 
is  upon  the  earth"  (v.  16).  Now  hold,  if  you  please, 
that  there  is  nothing  positive  in  this  treatment  of 
the  genius  soul ;  I  beg  you  to  observe  how  much  neg- 
ative there  is  in  it — that  just  where  of  all  the  world 
we  would  expect  to  find  some  disseverance  of  the 
beast's  soul  and  the  man's  soul  from  each  other,  they 


The    WJiole  of  Man,   Soul.  151 

are  thrown,  on  solemn  days,  remorselessly  together ; 
and,  indeed,  in  moral  enactments.  Man  is  enjoined 
not  to  smite  the  soul  of  a  beast.  ''  He  that  smiteth 
the  soul  of  a  man  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.  And 
he  that  smiteth  the  soul  of  a  beast  shall  make  it 
good,  soul  for  soul"  *  (Lev.  xxiv  :  17,  18). 

Now  here  we  might  rest.  But  I  beg  to  say  that 
the  inspired  writers  go  further,  and  absolutely  deal 
with  what  is  positive.  Not  only  do  they  say  that 
like  sheep  we  are  laid  in  the  grave,  and  that  Death 
shall  be  our  shepherd  (Ps.  xlix :  14) ;  not  only  do  they 
say  that  we  are  ''  born  like  the  wild  ass's  colt"  (Job 
xi:  12);  not  only  do  they  affirm  that  we  are  "like 
the  beasts  that  perish"  (Ps.  xlix :  12);  not  only  do 
they  ask,  *'  Who  knoweth  a  spirit  of  man  that  goeth 
upward,  and  a  spirit  of  the  beast  that  goeth  down- 
ward to  the  earth  ?"  (Ec.  iii :  21);  but  they  say  in 
this  very  last  chapter,  ''  I  said  in  my  heart  concern- 
ing the  estate  of  the  sons  of  men,  that  God  might 
manifest  them,  and  that  they  might  see  that  they 
themselves  are  beasts.  For  that  which  befalleth  the 
sons  of  men,  befalleth  beasts  ;  even  one  thing  be- 
falleth them :  as  the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other ; 
yea  they  have  all  one  spirit :  so  that  a  man  hath  noth- 
ine  left  of  himf  more  than  a  beast :   for  all  is  vanity. 

*  The  translators  say  "  beast  for  beast  ;"  and  that  doubtless  is  the 
meaning.  But  the  universal  care  to  throw  out  the  word  soul,  and  put 
in  something  else,  shows  how  thought  has  been  saturated.  "  Killeth  a 
man  "  is  the  translation  of  the  first  clause,  and  "  Killeth  a  beast,"  of 
the  second  ;  giving  nothing  in  the  margin  for  the  second  ;  and  giving 
another  word  than  soul  for  its  account  of  the  first. 

f  Not  "  no  preeminence"  (E.  V.).  That  could  not  be  said.  The 
word  is  mothar,  ixomyather,  to  leave  or  Jiaveover. 


152  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

All  go  unto  one  place ;  all  are  of  the  dust ;  and  all 
turn  to  dust  again"  (Ec.  iii :   18-20). 

Now,  as  we  have  all  along  said,  we  do  not  trust 
to  these  texts,  or  to  a  thousand  such  texts.  But  let 
it  be  observed,  we  are  going  through  the  whole  of  the 
Bible.  I  do  not  trust  to  one  lung,  or  especially  to  one 
part  of  one  lung.  But  I  beg  to  ask,  Where  are  my 
antagonist's  lungs  ?  We  have  sounded  from  side  to 
side,  and  cannot  discover  for  him  any  breathing 
spaces. 

4.  But  fourthly;  men  may  ask,  T>o  you  woX.  dis- 
tinguish the  soul  from  the  body?  And  here  will  be 
our  fourth  argument.  Breath  also  can  be  distin- 
guished from  the  body.  We  may  go  down  as  low  as 
the  lily.  The  dust  in  the  lily's  stalk,  and  the  life  of 
the  lily,  are  plainly  distinguishable.  And  if  we  as- 
cend to  animals,  the  dog,  with  his  fine  intelligence,  is 
to  be  looked  at  in  different  endowments  ;  his  matter 
first,  his  life  afterw^ards ;  and  his  intelligent  life  after 
that:  and  let  it  be  distinctly  understood  ;  we  believe 
these  to  be  different  gifts,  and  different  efficiencies, 
from  God  who  made  us.  But  does  that  at  all  prevent 
that  they  be  inseparable  ?  Molecules  might  be  related 
a  million  of  years,  and  yet  might  never  climb  a  pole  ; 
and,  therefore,  we  believe  in  motions  of  life  which 
must  be  by  energy  of  heaven,  which  enables  the  bean- 
dust  to  sprout  itself  upward,  and  to  draw  in  surround- 
ing molecules,  and  to  become  unitary  as  one  climb- 
ing vine  upon  the  earth.  Soul,  therefore,  may  be 
thoroughly  distinguished  from  molecules  of  matter  ; 
and  yet  may  not  be  separable  in  the  least  degree. 
Animals  afford  a  still  stronger  analogy.     If  life  may 


The    Whole   Man,    Soul.  153 

be  distinguished  from  the  lily-dust,  so  may  soul  from 
the  dust  of  the  cat  and  the  dog.  And  yet,  if  we  do 
not  separate  the  vital  oak  from  the  tons'  weight  of 
leaf  and  branch,  and  if  we  do  not  separate,  except  in 
thought,  the  mind  of  the  bison  from  his  material  mole- 
cules,— why  should  we  do  it  in  the  instance  of  man  ? 
I  mean,  why  should  we  do  it  unless  there  is  that  in 
the  language  of  Scripture  that  ordains  a  difference  ? 
that  is,  that  asserts  the  fact  that  man,  different  from 
the  tree,  has  a  separate  essence,  independent  of  the 
body  ? 

But,  now,  the  Bible's  distinctions  of  the  soul  are 
just  as  ours  are  in  the  tree  and  in  the  bison.  It 
begins  with  vast  indifference.  It  speaks  of  the  body 
as  though  it  included  the  soul,  and  it  speaks  of  the 
soul  as  though  it  included  the  body.  This  is  just  as 
it  might  better  be,  if  each  were  interlinked  with 
either.  It  speaks  of  the  soul  as  though  it  included 
every  thing ;  and,  therefore,  we  have  the  soul  for  self 
(Ps.  ciii :  i  ;  Ho.  ix  :  4) ;  and,  therefore  endlessly,  we 
have  the  soul  for  person  (Num.  xix  :  18  ;  Ez.  xxvii : 
13)  ;  and,  therefore  also,  we  have  the  soul  indifferently 
for  body  (Lev.  v  :  2).  We  hear  of  dead  souls  (Num. 
vi :  6),  and  of  souls  physically  smitten  (Lev.  xxiv : 
17),  and  of  souls  sensuously  eating  and  thirsting  and 
touching  and  crying  out,  which  are  functions  of  the 
animal  frame.  In  other  words,  we  have  the  Spirit 
speaking  expressly  in  ways  in  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  speak  when  we  mix,  in  ontological  respects, 
life  and  matter.  At  the  same  time,  we  have  the  two 
distinguished.  Beginning  back  at  the  beginning,  we 
have  the  soul  acting,  and  that  in  ways  that  involve 


154  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

the  body.  '*  Make  me  savory  meat,"  says  the  pa- 
triarch Isaac,  "  that  my  soul  may  bless  thee"  (Gen. 
xxvii  :  4).  "  When  a  soul  will  offer  a  meat  offering," 
says  Leviticus  (ii :  i).  We  need  make  no  discrimina- 
tion. It  may  be  eating.  It  may  be  smiting.  It 
may  be  touching.  There  is  a  perfect  carelessness  of 
division.  "  Soul  take  thine  ease"  says  the  rich  sin- 
ner, "  eat,  drink  and  be  merry"  (Lu.  xii ;  19).  These 
are  the  sentences  which  mix  the  oak  with  its  vitality. 
Then  there  are  sentences  where  the  soul  is  said  to 
feel.  There  the  vitality  separates  a  little.  ''  His 
soul  clave  unto  Dinah,"  says  the  narrative  in  Gene- 
sis (xxxiv :  3).  "  Ye  know  the  soul  of  a  stranger," 
says  Moses  afterward  (Ex.  xxiii :  9).  '*  Our  soul 
loatheth  this  light  bread"  (Num.  xxi :  5).  ''  If  your 
soul  abhor  my  judgments"  (Lev.  xxvi :  15).  And 
then, ''  anguish  of  soul"(Gen.  xlii :  2 1),  and  "  bitterness 
of  soul"  (I  Sam.  i:  10),  and  grief  of  soul  (Job  xxx: 
25),  and  affliction  of  soul  (Is.  Iviii :  10),  drift  us  away 
from  what  we  ever  dream  of  as  connected  with  the 
body.  Nay,  we  have  sins  of  soul  (Lev.  iv  :  2),  and, 
finally  God's  soul  (Jud.  x  :  16), — which  seem  to  make 
audaciously  wicked  the  Hnking  of  soul  with  the  bru- 
tal chemistry  of  our  bodies. 

And  here,  indeed,  is  the  grand  rally  of  the  appeal. 
Is  it  not,  it  will  be  said,  past  all  decency  of  doubt 
that  the  soul  does  and  the  body  does,  nay  that  the 
soul  is  and  the  body  is,  a  very  different  thing?  May 
not  these  travellers  together  get  mixed  in  many  a 
sentence  ?  May  not  the  soul  eat,  and  may  not  the 
soul  smite  and  touch  and  slay,  just  as  the  body  may 
*' serve"  and   be  "  holy,"  through   the  mere  tasteful 


The   Whole  Man,    Soul.  155 

mingling  of  important  metaphors,  and  yet,  when  it 
comes  to  sin  (Ez.  xviii :  4),  and  to  love  (i  Sam.xviii: 
i),  and  to  faith  (Lam.  iii  :  25),  and  above  all  to  God 
(Jer.  xiv :  19),  can  there  be  the  same  conceivable 
essence  in  both  soul  and  body  ? 

Now  here  is  the  place  for  making  our  grand  final 
distinction. 

There  is  not  the  same  conceivable  essence  of  life 
and  a  bean-stalk.  We  assert  of  life  what  we  cannot 
assert  o{  the  mere  molecules  of  the  bean.  The  mere 
molecules  of  the  bean  have  a  certain  efficiency.  The 
mere  life  of  the  bean-stalk  has  another  efficiency. 
The  mind  of  the  bison  and  the  dog  has  an  efficiency 
still  different.  These  are  energies  of  God.  They  are 
piled  up  still  heavier  in  the  case  of  man.  Now,  they 
are  so  different  in  faith  and  in  hope  and  in  love  and 
in  sin  from  what  they  are  in  moving  the  body,  that 
there  are  no  limits  which  we  will  not  concede  in  the 
ennobling  of  thought  beyond  the  molecules  of  the 
body :  and  yet,  with  the  precedent  of  life  so  far  beyond 
the  bean-particles,  and  with  the  precedent  of  soul  so 
far  beyond  the  dog-particles,  we  cannot  mix  the 
dog's  soul  with  his  body,  and  then  refuse,  except  on 
the  distinct  basis  of  Scripture,  that  the  soul  of  the 
man  shall  follow,  as  the  dog's  does,  the  natural  his- 
tory of  the  animal  frame. 

The  soul,  as  a  distinct  appellative,  becomes  so 
common,  that  the  Bible  does  not  hesitate,  in  one  pas- 
sage, to  link  with  it  all  the  highest  interests  of  our 
eternal  claim.  *'  Fear  not  them,"  says  our  blessed 
Redeemer,  "  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to 
kill  the  soul"  (Matt.  X :  28):  but  not  only  does  the 


156  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

passage  itself  correct  itself  by  immediately  linking 
one  with  the  other,  "  Fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell"  ;  not  only  does  our 
Saviour  put  a  gloss  upon  it  by  modifying  the  like 
sentences, — ''  And  1  say  unto  you,  my  friends.  Be  not 
afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that  have 
no  more  that  they  can  do"  (Lu.  xii  :  4) ;  not  only 
does  he  throw  away  the  idea  of  our  being  disem- 
bodied, by  leaping,  as  in  other  passages  (2  Cor.  v :  i), 
across  the  gulf,  and  saying,  **  Fear  him  which,  after  he 
hath  killed"  (that  is,  the  body,  v :  4),  *'  hath  power  to 
cast  into  hell"  (Lu.  xii  :  5) ;  not  only  is  the  same  leap 
characteristic  of  Paul  : — "  It  is  appointed  to  all  men 
once  to  die,  and  after  that  the  judgment  "  (Heb.  ix: 
27) ;  but  the  case  itself  is  of  no  particular  moment 
when  we  come  to  remember  that,  like  the  life  of  the 
oak(Ps.  Iviii :  10),  or  like  the  soul  of  a  fish  (Gen.  i : 
20),  or  like  the  spirit  of  a  saint  (i  Jo.  iv  :  2),  the  soul 
does,  most  of  all,  describe  the  man.  It  is  not  at  all 
unnatural  that  we  should  hear  of  the  salvation  of  the 
soul.  It  would  be  highly  unnatural  if  that  word  were 
not  preferred,  to  speak  of  the  raised  man,  when  he  is 
to  be  immortal.  And  just  as  Stephen  says,  '*  Receive 
my  spirit"  (Acts  vii :  59) ;  and  just  as  Christ  says,  "  I 
commend  my  spirit "  (Lu.  xxiii :  46) ;  and  just  as  the 
parable  says,  "  Thy  soul  shall  be  required  of  thee" 
(Lu.  xii :  20), — so  the  phrase,  ''  And  are  not  able  to 
kill  the  soul"  (Matt,  x  :  28),  is  so  naturally  accounted 
for  without,  that  it  cannot  overcome  the  weight  of 
the  aforequotcd  antagonistic  revelations.'-^ 

*  God's  soul  of  course,  on  any  theory,  is  a  mere  metaphor. 


The   Whole   Man,    Soul.  157 

It  remains  only  to  note  another  fact,  viz.,  that  the 
blood  is  said  to  be  the  soul  (Lev.  xvii :   14). 

Now  I  am  not  going  to  run  away  with  this,  or  to 
teach  the  doctrine  that  it  is  a  scientific  inspiration. 
It  may  have  been  a  creed  in  Egypt  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment may  have  been,  With  this  profound  association 
with  blood,  ye  shall  not  eat  it.  I  do  not  care  scien- 
tifically to  expound  the  passage.  It  may  have  been 
a  wise  incorporation  by  God  of  the  deepest  science 
about  our  life  with  the  respect  due  to  our  history; 
but  no  doubt  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  metaphor  for 
atonement  for  all  our  sins,  because  of  some  ancient 
thought  that  blood  was  the  soul :  a  thought  that 
must  be  largely  metaphoric  ;  but  which,  by  passing  by 
brain  ;  by  saying  nothing  of  that  cerebral  part  which 
must  very  early  have  appeared  to  man  as  the  secret 
of  his  consciousness  ;  by  passing  by  nerve  and  lung 
and  hver  and  sense,  and  all  our  vital  members  ;  by 
coming  to  such  a  senseless  thing  as  blood  ;  by  com- 
ing nevertheless  to  that  which  modern  discovery  does 
put  at  the  very  fountain  of  our  being ;  by  singling 
that  cell-germ  which  does  begin  in  the  blood,  and 
which  does  grow  from  the  very  foetal  cellules  on, 
hke  a  coral  reef — I  say,  this  profound  hypothesis  : — 
*'  Flesh  in  the  soul  thereof,  which  is  the  blood  thereof 
(Gen.  ix :  4) :  "  For  the  soul  of  the  flesh  is  in  the 
blood"  (Lev.  xvii:  11);  "No  soul  of  you  shall  eat 
blood"  (v.  12),  ''For  it  is  the  soul  of  all  flesh.  Its 
blood  is  in  [or  as]  its  soul :  for  the  soul  of  all  flesh 
is  its  blood"  (v  14:  see  also  Deut.  xii :  23-25), — 
does  show  that  the  inspired  Author  of  the  Bible 
had   no  earthly  aversion  to   encouraging  the   belief 


158  Immortality   not   in   Scripture, 

that    the    soul   was    inseparable    from    our   bloody 
tissues. 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Spirit. 

Spirit  has  been  spoken  of  almost  enough  ;  be- 
cause much  that  should  be  said  of  it  could  not  be 
separated,  conveniently,  from  the  soul. 

There  are,  however,  some  aspects  that  must  be 
treated  specially. 

Spirit  is  a  higher  word  ;  more  recent,  probably, 
than  the  soul.  Soul  comes  to  the  lips  of  the  chroni- 
cler, as  of  reptiles  and  in  the  very  first  creation  (Gen. 
i :  20).  Soul,  therefore,  has  lost  its  early  sense,  and 
is  seldom  used  for  wind  or  breath  :  we  might  almost 
say,  never  {see  Gesen.).  Spirit,  therefore,  seems  the 
newer  word,  and  naturally  more  extreme,  in  this, 
that,  first,  it  has  not  failed  out  of  its  earlier  sense 
(Jobix:  18),  and  yet  it  has  been  chosen  to  mean 
what  is  the  very  highest  and  noblest.  Accordingly, 
as  we  might  expect,  it  has  some  meanings  that  are 
lower  and  plainer  than  are  found  for  the  soul ;  but 
most,  a  great  deal  higher. 

Let  me  illustrate. 

''  His  spirit  came  again,"  we  hear  in  the  inspired 
history  (i  Sam.  xxx :  12),  when  "  they  gave  him  a 
piece  of  a  cake  of  figs  and  two  clusters  of  raisins." 
So  it  was  with  Samson  (Jud.  xv  :  19).  And  it  was 
expressed  with  even  a  commoner  word  when  a  per- 
son actually  died.  '*  There  was  no  breath  left  in 
him"  (i  Ki.  xvii :   17);  and  Elijah  went  and   prayed. 


spirit,  159 

*'  and  the  soul  of  the  child  came  into  him  again"(v. 
22).  Spirit,  also,  is  spoken  of  beasts  ;  and,  in  fact,  of 
man  and  beast  ;  for  all  are  thrown  together  in  whom 
are  the  spirit  of  life  (Gen.  vi :  17) ;  and  Solomon  de- 
clares, "  For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men  be- 
falleth  beasts  ;  even  one  thing  befalleth  them  :  as 
the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the  other  ;  yea,  they  have  all 
one  spirit"  (Ec.  iii :   19). 

But,  needing  a  name  for  conscience  and  the 
higher  part,  the  Scriptures  have  fallen  upon  this  ;  so 
that,  as  we  have  said,  spirit  is  the  name,  not  only  for 
the  common  breath  or  life  of  man  (Ez.  xxxvii  :  8), 
but,  more  theologically,  for  his  conscience  (Gal.  v  : 
17).  This  last  is  erected  into  so  distinct  a  notion, 
that  the  Apostle  calls  it  the  ''  inner  man  "  (Rom.  vii : 
22),  and  plainly  implies  that  it  belongs  to  all  men, 
saints  and  sinners.  He  speaks  of  it  as  in  himself. 
He  represents  the  pnanna  as  pleading  for  the  law, 
even  when  he  was  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  He  re- 
presents this  pneiuna  so  strongly,  that  modern  exe- 
getes  break  away  from  the  old  patristic  understand- 
ing, and  think  he  must  be  speaking  of  the  regene- 
rated man.  And  yet  the  very  strongest  expressions, 
as  for  example  this, — "  I  delight  *  in  the  law  of  the 
Lord  after  the  inward  man"  (v.  22)  ;  or,  for  another 
example,  this, — "  What  I  hate,  that  do  I"  (v.  15)  ;  or, 
for  still  another,  this, — **  With  the  mind  I  myself 
serve  the  law  of  God"  (v.  25)  ;  however  much  they 
may  have  been  seized,  in  modern  times,  as  describ- 
ing the  believer,  do  really  describe  the  impenitent  ; 

*  This  English  is  too  strong :  the  Greek    is  sunedomai,  "  I  am 
pleased  with." 


i6o  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

the  idea  being  the  old  and  common  one,  that  man 
has  an  imperial  conscience  ;  that  that  conscience  is 
on  the  side  of  law;  that  that  law  is  spiritual  (Rom. 
vii :  14)  and  the  mind  of  the  Almighty ;  that  that 
mind  is  liked  by  the  inner  nature  of  man  (v.  22) ;  that 
that  nature  is  decaying  in  the  lost ;  that  that  nature 
is  renewed  in  the  beHever  (Ps.  li :  10) ;  and  that  that 
nature,  which  ever  way  it  is  going,  whether  as  being 
renewed  or  as  being  grieved  away,  is  the  spirit  of 
man,  for  which  that  name  has  been  decreed  which 
we  are  now  considering  as  among  the  words  of 
Scripture. 

This  spirit  is  so  distinctly  set  apart,  that  it  is  an- 
tagonized to  other  powers,  which  nevertheless  can 
think  and  reason  ;  as,  for  example,  to  the  flesh.  The 
flesh  is  said  to  feel  (Rom.  xiii :  14) ;  and  also,  without 
hesitation,  it  is  said  to  desire  (Eph.  ii :  3)  ;  and  we 
are  to  understand  that  it  thinks  and  reasons  (2  Cor. 
i :  17) :  and  yet,  in  the  same  narrow  realm  of  man, 
we  are  to  suppose  there  is  room  for  spirit.  *'  The  flesh 
lusteth  against  the  spirit"  (Gal.  v:  17).  I  beg  that 
it  may  be  noticed  how  didactic  the  expression  is. 
The  apostle  is  dealing  in  the  soberest  reflections. 
And  yet  he  hesitates  not  a  moment ;  "  The  flesh 
lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit  against  the 
flesh  :  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  so 
that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would."  Our 
point,  therefore,  is,  that  spirit  is  used  to  describe 
the  moral  faculty  of  our  nature. 

But  not  only  is  it  antagonized  to  flesh,  and  that 
ruder  form  of  our  carnality  ;  but  to  soul,  and  that  in 
ways  injuriously  smothered  by  our  translators.     Paul 


spirit.  i6i 

makes  it  color  the  risen  body.  He  says,  *'  Some  will 
say,  How  are  the  dead  raised  up?"  (i  Cor.  xv  :  35). 
And  after  a  c^ood  deal  of  preliminary  writing,  he 
comes  to  this  striking  expression,  "  It  is  sowed  a 
soul-body  ;  it  is  raised  a  spirit-body"  (v.  44).  He  is 
not  afraid  to  descant  upon  it : — *'  There  is  a  soul- 
body,  and  there  is  a  spirit-body" :  and  then  winds 
up  with  the  asseverance,  ''  Howbeit  that  was  not 
first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  psiichical^ 
and  afterward  that  which  is  spiritual"  (v.  46) :  the 
meaning  of  all  which  is,  that  we  are  born  into  this 
world  with  a  body  that  is  under  the  dominion  of  the 
soul;  that  is,  of  man  in  all  that  part  of  his  nature 
that  has  least  of  conscience  and  of  the  fear  of  God  ; 
but  that  we  will  be  born  into  another  world,  spiritual. 
There  is  no  thought  of  etheriality  of  flesh,  or  of 
spirituality,  in  any  sense  of  there  being  no  grossness 
or  avoirdupois  solidity  of  our  persons  ;  but  it  is  an  in- 
timation of  our  holiness  ;  that,  whereas,  in  this  world, 
we  had  bodies  subject  to  our  souls,  in  a  better  world 
they  shall  be  subject  to  our  spirits  ;  the  mere  conclu- 
sion being,  that  spirit  is  a  higher  name  for  the  soul ; 
that  is,  that  it  is  the  conscience  and  the  moral  part, 
at  the  Great  Day  become  regnant  in  our  nature. 

With  this  understanding,  we  have  no  trouble  with 
*'  spirit,  soul  and  body"  (i  Thess.  v :  23),  and  the  mad 
trichotomies  preached  up  in  our  day.  Body  contains 
the  whole.  Soul  is  inseparable  from  the  body.  And 
spirit  is  but  another  name  for  it  in  its  grander  and 
more  conscientious  leanings.  The  three  borrow  and 
diffuse  their  lights.  The  soul  need  not  be  separated 
from  the  body,  if  the  soul  is  not  to  be  separated  from 


1 62  Immortality   not   in   Scripture. 

the  spirit.  I  mean,  the  very  use  of  this  trinity,  throw- 
ing the  soul  into  the  same  category  with  the  body, 
and  then  throwing  the  soul  with  the  evidently  in- 
separable spirit,  leads  to  the  imagination  that  all  are 
inseparable,  and  are  only  to  be  distinguished  in  those 
natural  ways  that  are  common  even  to  the  brute 
creation. 

But  now,  further  !  God  becomes  mingled  with  this 
language.  What  is  the  meaning  of  spirit?  Breath. 
Whose  breath  ?  Man's.  Nay  but  who  breathes  it  ? 
God.  There  is  a  delight  in  Scripture  in  attributing 
to  God  subjective  presence  in  the  work  of  man.  Paul, 
magnifying  prophecy  (and  he  meant  prophecy  in  the 
wider  sense),  says,  "  Thus  are  the  secrets  of  his  heart 
made  manifest;  and  so,  falling  down  on  his  face,  he 
will  worship  God,  and  report  that  God  is  in  you  of  a 
truth"  (i  Cor.  xiv :  25).  Christ  says,  "The  Father 
that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works"  (Jo.  xiv: 
10).  And  breaking  out  in  a  still  grander  strain,  Paul 
declares,  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless  I 
live  :  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me :  and  the  life 
which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the 
Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me" 
(Gal.  ii :  20). 

It  is  not  a  violence,  therefore,  that  Scripture,  hav- 
ing this  tendency  of  speech,  should  take  the  word 
breath,  and  apply  it  to  Him  who  breathes  it.  And 
we  should  predict  that,  if  one  word  breath  was  higher 
than  another  word  breath ;  that  is,  that  if  one  word 
breath  was  applied  to  soul,  and  another  word  breath 
was  applied  to  something  higher,  namely  conscience, 
— God  would  be  especially  described  by  that  higher 


spirit.  1 63 

and  nobler  breath.  Hence  God  is  very  rarely  called 
soul,  and  is  very  constantly  called  Spirit ;  sometimes 
as  breathing  into  matter  (Job  xxvi :  13),  but  oftencr 
as  breathing  into  our  higher  part,  and  working  the 
very  renewal  that  we  need  in  our  heart  and  conscience. 

Now,  so  inseparable  is  our  breath  from  God's 
breath, — I  mean  pncuma  or  breath  as  the  trope  for 
conscience, — that  in  many  a  passage  it  makes  no  dif- 
ference which  is  thought  of.  For  example,  where 
Paul  says,  *'  They  that  are  after  the  spirit,  do  mind 
the  things  of  the  spirit"  (Rom.  viii  :  5),  it  makes  no 
difference  which  we  understand,  unless  indeed  it  does 
make  a  difference,  and  we  should  understand  it  of 
our  spirits,  seeing  that,  in  the  ninth  verse,  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  separately  mentioned,  "  Ye  are  not  in  the 
flesh,  but  in  the  spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwell  in  you."  We  can  multiply  these  equivoques. 
*'  If  we  live  in  the  spirit,  let  us  also  walk  in  the  spirit" 
(Gal.  V  :  25).  "  He  that  soweth  to  the  spirit,  shall,  of 
the  spirit  reap  life  everlasting"  (Gal.  vi :  8).  "  Sancti- 
fication  of  the  spirit"  Paul  talks  of,  when  writing  to 
the  Thessalonians  (2  Thes.  ii :  13).  "  By  the  spirit 
that  he  hath  given  us,"  says  the  apostle  John(i  Jo. 
iii :  24).  And  that  no  one  may  be  horrified  by  this 
raising  of  a  doubt,  let  him  examine  the  work  of  our 
translation,  and  he  will  see  the  most  painful  confusion 
in  supplying  the  capital  letter,  where  God's  Spirit  or 
man's  spirit  is  the  thing  in  question  (see  for  this  Jo. 
iv:  23,  24  ;  2  Cor.  iii :  6;  xii :  18;  Eph.  vi  :  18  ;  Phil. 
i :  27  ;   I  Tim.  iv :   12  ;   i  Pet.  iv  :  6 ;   i  Jo.  iv :  2). 

I  say,  therefore,  that  it  makes  no  difference,  in 
many  a  passage,  whether  the  word  piieiuiia  is  the 


164  Inimortality  not   in   Scripture, 

spiritual  breath  that  God  breathes  into  man,  and, 
therefore,  that  glorious  efficiency  in  the  soul  of  the 
sinner,  or  whether  it  is  the  spiritual  breath  that  that 
efficiency  creates,  i.  e.,  the  higher  conscience  or 
moral  part  of  our  humanity.  And,  now,  I  go  fur- 
ther and  say,  that  there  is  a  splendid  passage  that 
says  that  the  one  thing  and  the  other  thing  are  dis- 
tinguishably  and  with  reverent  significance  the  same. 

Let  me  proceed  carefully. 

When  I  say  that  God  is  in  me,  I  mean  modest 
and  easily  defended  truth.  The  Bible  is  full  of  such 
things.  It  says  we  are  "  partakers  of  the  divine  na- 
ture" (2  Pet.  i :  4).  It  can  only  be  because  some  in- 
stance is  new,  that  it  can  shock  us  in  the  least 
degree. 

Now,  we  introduce  such  an  instance.  Our  Lord 
speaks  to  the  woman  of  Samaria.  He  has  been 
sketching  the  realities  of  worship.  He  says,  *'Ye 
worship  ye  know  not  what :  we  know  what  we  wor- 
ship :  for  salvation  is  of  the  Jews"  (Jo.  iv  :  22).  He 
goes  on  to  say,  **  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is, 
when  the  true  worshipper  shall  worship  the  Father  in 
spirit  and  in  truth"  (v  23).  And  then  follows  this 
strangely  misrendered  aphorism — "  SPIRIT  IS  God" 
(v.  24).  I  know  of  nothing  so  confidently  thrown  into 
mistake  in  all  our  criticism.  The  meaning  of  our 
Saviour  is  evident.  Man,  he  says,  must  worship  the 
Father  in  spirit.  And  then,  as  an  obvious  consider- 
ation why  spirit  must  be  the  region  of  worship,  he 
says,  '•'•  Spirit  is  God." 

Nor  need  we  be  shocked  at  such  an  asseverance. 
The  Apostle  repeats  it.     ''  Now  the  Lord  is  that 


spirit,  165 

spirit"  (2  Cor.  iii :  17).  The  last  sentence  in  which 
the  word  *'  spirit"  had  been  mentioned,  it  is  spelled 
without  a  capital  even  by  the  translators  (v.  6).  And, 
yet,  here  comes  the  bold  echo,  "  The  Lord  is  that 
spirit."  And  it  puts  beyond  difficulty  the  words  of 
Christ  when  he  speaks  in  awful  earnestness  to  the 
woman  of  Samaria. 

*'  Spirit  is  God." 

Now,  I  know,  grammar  will  be  appealed  to  to  re- 
fute us.  But  take  this  sentence, — "  Gain  is  godliness" 
(i  Tim.  vi :  5).  Precisely  the  same  grammar  reigns 
in  one  passage  as  in  the  other.  Old  Middleton  has 
ruled  another  case  (Jo.  i :  i)  through  the  Article. 
But  Glassius  and  Rambach  have  entirely  refuted  him 
(see  Winer).  There  are  no  grammatical  difficulties. 
The  meaning  of  our  Lord  is  plain.  We  recur  to  our 
idea.  Spirit  is  so  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  that  it 
gives  a  name  even  to  Him.  And  our  blessed  Lord 
would  teach  the  doctrine  ;  not  that  God's  Spirit  and 
man's  spirit  are  one  and  the  same  thing, — but  that,  in 
Oriental  speech,  as  life  in  us  is  Christ  in  us  (i  Jo.  v : 
12),  and  as  miracle  in  us  is  God  in  us  (i  Cor.  xiv  :  25), 
and,  hence,  as  piety  in  us  is  the  Holy  Ghost  in  us  (i 
Cor.  iii  :  16),  so,  and  more  definitely,  the  spirit  or 
higher  part  in  man  is  God's  Spirit ;  as  the  old  hea- 
then expressed  it,  the  voice  of  the  Almighty  ;  and  in 
very  literal  ways,  the  work  of  his  power  :  like  the  hfe 
in  the  bean,  a  divine  efficiency;  like  the  mind  in  the 
ox,  the  light  of  the  word  of  God ;  in  the  instance  of 
man,  a  higher  word,  warranting  the  speech  of  Christ 
that  the  spirit  or  higher  part  of  man  is  God's  Spirit, 
not  altogether  in  metaphoric  sense,  but  in  that  ef- 


1 66  Immortality   not   in   Scripture, 

ficient  way  in  which  God  is  our  h'ght  and  righteous- 
ness. 

Then,  firstly,  the  passage  is  lost  to  them  who 
would  build  on  it,  in  any  way,  helps  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  separateness  and  essence  of  the  spirit.  There 
is  no  such  passage  as  "  God  is  a  spirit." 

Secondly,  we  understand  the  sentence,  "  Whether 
in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body"  (2  Cor.  xii :  2). 

If  God  is  our  upholding  Breath,  he  could  carry 
Paul,  in  the  spirit,  altogether  away  from  any  other 
efficiency  of  his  nature.  He  could  make  Paul  be  on 
earth,  and  see  in  heaven.  He  could  work  any  miracle. 
And,  therefore,  this  conscious  uncertainty  of  Paul  is 
no  more  decisive  of  his  two  estates,  than  his  yet  more 
mere  shadowy  speech,  ''  absent  in  body,  but  present 
in  spirit"  (1  Cor.  v  :  3).     We  may  pass  these  things. 

Thirdly  ;  spirit,  therefore,  is  not  disembodied.  It 
parts,  never  a  moment,  with  its  metaphor  of  breath. 
Even  God's  mixture  with  it  betokens  the  same  idea. 
*'  If  we  live,  it  is  not  we  that  live,"  but  there  is  no 
sign  of  living  outside  of  either  soul  or  body;  and 
''  the  life  that  we  now  live  in  the  flesh,"  must  be  so  a 
pattern  of  the  embodied  life  beyond,  that,  unless 
Scripture  is  a  mistake,  we  settle  that  as  our  faith  from 
its  plainest  revelation. 


IV. 

THE    IMMORTALITY     OF    THE    SOUL    A 
RELIC    OF   PAGANISM. 

The  most  intolerable  burden  that  our  doctrine 
has  to  carry,  is  the  weight  of  the  world's  belief:  and 
I  confess  that  the  church  is  so  far  infallible,  that  all 
the  great  teachings  of  the  gospel  cannot  be  supposed 
to  have  been  lost  or  hid  or  misunderstood  among 
believers. 

But  our  very  statement  is,  that  our  doctrine  is 
not  a  vital  one. 

Far  more  vital  is  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments. 
If  the  sacrament  is  of  the  very  body  and  blood  of  the 
Redeemer,  to  disown  it,  when  our  Saviour  says,  "  This 
is  my  body"  (i  Cor.  xi  :  24) ;  to  denounce  it,  in  the 
face  of  that  earnest  speech,  "  As  the  living  Father 
hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that 
eateth  me  shall  live  by  me"  (Jo.  vi :  57) — a  speech 
repeated,  and  redoubled,  and  wrought  in,  even  when 
according  to  our  Protestant  thought  it  was  seen  to  be 
misunderstood, — then  the  Papist  is  right,  and  it  is  a 
horrible  impiety  ;  and  yet  all  this  was  the  belief  of 
the  world,  scarcely  broken  until  three  hundred  years 
ago. 

It  will  not  do  to  plead  precedents. 

Gahleo  shocked  the  faith  of  the  whole  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

And  yet  it  will  be  said.  Take  the  common  sober 


1 68  The  hnmortality  of  the   Soul 

arithmetic.  Where  are  the  probabilities  likely  to 
preponderate?  Are  you  certain  to  be* right,  and 
the  whole  family  of  behevers  of  crass  intellect,  and 
pitiably  and,  as  you  would  have  it  appear,  shame- 
fully and  with  scarce  any  argument  asleep  and 
wrong?  That  is  the  strong  appeal.  What  ought  we 
to  do? 

It  will  be  right  certainly  to  pare  down  the  oppo- 
sition, and  to  show  that  the  court  of  Christendom 
has  had  offered  to  it  some  notable  demurrers. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  Augustine,  in  his  earlier 
writings,  showed  wonderful  vacillation,  to  say  the 
very  least,  and  though  he  recalled  various  evidences 
of  this  in  his  Retractions,  yet  the  very  pause  and  hesi- 
tation of  such  a  mind  as  his  is  full  of  genuine  sig- 
nificance. 

II.  In  the  second  place,  the  Fortieth  Article  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  read  in  this  way,  '*  They  who 
say  that  the  souls  of  such  as  depart  hence  do  sleep, 
being  without  all  sense,  feeling,  and  perceiving,  until 
the  day  of  judgment,  or  affirm  that  the  souls  die  with 
the  bodies,  and  at  the  last  day  shall  be  raised  up  with 
the  same,  do  utterly  dissent  from  the  right  belief  de- 
clared unto  us  in  the  holy  scripture." 

This  article  not  only  showed  the  prevalence  of 
such  conceits  by  its  adoption,  but  it  showed,  either 
first,  their  innocence,  or  second,  their  revival  and  ob- 
stinacy, or  respectable  continuance,  by  its  rescission  ; 
for  in  1562,  ten  years  later  than  Edward's  reformers, 
the  Articles  were  reduced  to  thirty  nine ;  and  this  was 
one  of  the  three  that  were  bodily  excluded.  The 
remark  of  Archdeacon   Blackburne  may   be  noted : 


a   Relic   of  Paganism.  169 

"  By  allowing  separate  souls  to  have  sense,  feeling 
and  perception,  the  doctrines  of  purgatory  and  invo- 
cation would  naturally  follow"  (Blackburne's  Works, 
vol.  iii :  p.  85). 

III.  In  the  third  place,  I  appeal  to  Luther. 

Now  Luther's  testimony  has  been  wonderfully 
debated. 

Bayle  denies  that  he  believed  in  our  being 
mortal. 

Luther  certainly  hankered  after  invocation.  It 
filled  his  fancy.  Moreover,  in  the  broil  of  a  reform^ 
just  such  as  Luther  would  be  thrown  back  upon  many 
an  expression  of  his  old  belief.  Besides,  he  was 
taxed  with  this  inconsistency,  and  beyond  all  manner 
of  doubt  paltered  and  hesitated.  We  do  not  defend 
him.  We  only  say.  He  taught  our  doctrine  :  and  no 
twisting  of  his  speech  can  work  out  of  it  any  other 
expression. 

Let  me  quote. 

On  Eccles.  ix :  10  he  says,  "  Therefore  Solomon 
thought  that  the  dead  utterly  slept,  and  were  quite 
unconscious.  They  lie  there  dead,  not  counting  days 
or  years;  but  when  raised  up,  shall  seem  to  them- 
selves scarce  to  have  slept  a  moment."  *  On  Gen. 
iv  :  9  ; — ''  We  gather  from  this  place  the  very  strong- 
est showing,  that,  if  there  were  no  one  that  had  a 
care  for  us  after  this  life,  Abel  slain  would  not  be 
again  sought  after.  But  God  seeks  after  Abel  taken 
away  from  this  life  ;  wills  him  to  be  not  forgotten  ; 
keeps  memory  of  him  ;  asks  where  is  he."f 

One  of  the  apologists  of  Luther  says  that  '*  the 

*  Oj>era  Witlcomb.  vol.  iv.  p.  36.  f  lb.  vol.  vi.  p.  64. 

8 


I/O  TJie  I))i7nortality  of  the   Soul 

origin  of  the  calumny,"  for  so  he  chooses  to  call  it, 
*'  is  in  a  letter  he  wrote  to  Amsdorf  in  the  year  1522, 
in  which  he  appears  much  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
souls  of  the  just  sleep  to  the  day  of  judgment,  with- 
out knowing  where  they  are,  etc.  He  does  not  pre- 
tend to  say  that  they  are  dead  in  this  interval" 
[What  can  be  meant  by  that  ?],  "  but  only  lay  in  a 
profound  rest  and  sleep,  in  which  opinion  he  folloived 
viariy  fathers  of  t lie  ancient  cJnirchy 

Let  it  be  observed,  these  are  the  words  of  an 
apologist. 

Look  again  : — "  When  he  shall  rise  again,"  says 
Luther,  speaking  of  the  Elector  who  died  on  a  re- 
turn from  the  chase,  ''  it  will  seem  to  him  as  though 
he  had  just  come  from  the  forests,  where  he  was 
hunting."* 

Luther  seems  to  have  conceived  it  right  to  speak 
of  the  soul  as  living  though  dead  (Col.  iii :  3) ;  but 
this  is  about  his  account  of  it :  "  True  it  is,  they 
have  peace  in  faith,"  says  he,  speaking  of  Rom.  v  : 
I,**  but  the  same  peace  is  invisible  and  surpasseth 
all  human  conceit :  insomuch  that,  being  even  in 
death,  feeling  no  life  at  all,  we  must  nevertheless  be- 
lieve we  live."f 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  Luther's  leaning  ;  and 
Sleidan,  telling  us  of  his  death  (which  of  course  pre- 
cludes the  idea  of  his  having  recanted),  gives  us  this 
sequel : — "  At  supper  he  spoke  of  various  matters, 
and  asked  this  among  the  rest,  whether  in  the  eter- 
nal Hfe  we  shall  know  each  other  ?  and  when  the  de- 
sire was  expressed  to  know  his  opinion.  What,  he 

*  Seckendorf  Hist.  B.  iii  ;  p.  30.  f  Coll.  Mens.,  p.  402. 


a   Relic   of  Paganism,  171 

asked,  happened  to  Adam  ?  He  had  never  seen  Eve : 
but,  when  God  was  forminfr  her,  he  was  ivrappcd  in 
tJic profoundcst  slumber.  Nevertheless,  roused  again 
to  Hfe,  he  did  not  ask,  when  he  saw  her,  Who  is  she  ? 
or,  Where  did  she  come  from  ?  but  says,  she  is  flesh 
of  his  flesh  and  bone  of  his  bones.  How,  though, 
did  he  know  this?  unless,  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  endowed  with  the  knowledge  of  God,  he  so 
pronounced  ?  In  the  same  manner  we,  in  another 
life,  shall  be  renewed  by  Christ  ;  and  parents, 
wives,  children  and  all  the  rest,  we  shall  know  much 
more  perfectly  than  at  that  time  Adam  knew 
Eve."  - 

So  much  for  intermediate  unconsciousness  as  in- 
contestibly  an  idea  of  Luther. 

4.  Now  Tyndal  ;  what  are  we  to  say  of  him  ? 

I  will  transcribe  at  length. 

He  is  replying  to  Sir  Thomas  More.  ''  And  ye, 
in  putting  them  [departed  souls]  in  heaven,  hell  and 
purgatory,  DESTROY  THE  ARGUMENTS  WHEREWITH 
CHRIST  AND  PAUL  PROVE  THE  RESURRECTION.f 
What  God  doth  with  them,  that  shall  we  know  when 
we  come  to  them.  The  true  faith  putteth  the  resur- 
rection, which  we  are  warned  to  look  for  every  hour. 
The  heathen  philosophers,  denying  that,  did  put  that 
the  souls  did  ever  live.  And  the  Pope  joineth  the 
spiritual  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the  fleshly  doctrine 
of  philosophers  together,  things  so  contrary  that  they 
cannot  agree,  no  more  than  the  spirit  and  the  flesh  do 
in  a  Christian  man.    And,  because  the  fleshly  minded 

*  Sleidan,  B.  xvi :  p.  488. 

f    The  capitals  are  ours.  Let  us  recollect  ;  this  is  William  Tyndall, 


1/2  The  Iimnortality   of  the   Soul 

Pope  consenteth  unto  heathen  doctrine,  therefore  he 
corrupteth  the  scripture  to  stablish  it.  Moses  saith 
in  Deuteronomy,  the  secret  things  pertain  unto  the 
Lord,  and  the  things  that  be  open  pertain  unto  us, 
that  we  may  do  all  that  is  written  in  the  book. 
Wherefore,  Sir,  if  we  loved  the  laws  of  God,  and 
would  occupy  ourselves  to  fulfil  them,  and  would,  on 
the  other  side,  be  meek  and  let  God  alone  with  his 
secrets,  and  suffer  him  to  be  wiser  than  we,  we  should 
make  none  article  of  the  faith  of  this  or  that.  .  .  . 
If  the  souls  be  in  heaven,  tell  me  why  they  be  not  in 
as  good  case  as  the  angels  be  ?  And  then  what  cause 
is  there  of  the  resurrection  ?  "  On  More  objecting, — 
"  What  shall  he  care  how  long  he  live  in  sin  that  be- 
lieveth  Luther  that  he  shall  after  this  life  feel  neither 
good  nor  evil  in  body  or  soul  until  the  day  of  doom  ?  " 
Tyndal  answers,  "  Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  no 
other,  but  warned  to  look  for  Christ's  coming  again 
every  hour  ;  which  coming  again,  because  ye  believe 
will  never  be,  therefore  have  ye  feigned  that  other 
merchandise."* 

Could  I  with  any  wisdom  continue  the  list  ?  Locke 
and  Dodwell  and  the  Bishop  of  Carlile  and  the  Arch- 
deacon of  Cleveland  and  Coward  and  Layton  might 
add  more  signatures  to  the  opinion,  but  could  they 
add  more  influence?  What  pious  saint  could  give  a 
weightier  judgment  in  the  Bible  than  its  martyred 
translator  ?  "  The  peculiar  genius,"  says  Froude, 
speaking  of  a  later  version, — *'  The  peculiar  genius,  if 
such  a  word  may  be  permitted,  which  breathes  through 
it;  the  mingled  tenderness  and  majesty;  the  Saxon 

*    Tyndall,  p.  327. 


a   Relic  of  Paganism,  173 

simplicity;  the  preternatural  grandeur,  unequalled, 
unapproached,  in  the  attempted  improvements  of 
modern  scholars, — all  are  here,  and  bear  the  impress 
of  one  man,  William  Tyndal.  Lying,  while  engaged 
in  that  great  office,  under  the  shadow  of  death,  the 
sword  above  his  head,  and  ready  at  any  moment  to 
fall,  he  worked  under  circumstances  alone  perhaps 
truly  worthy  of  the  task  which  was  laid  upon  him  : 
his  spirit,  as  it  were,  divorced  from  the  world,  moved 
in  a  purer  element  than  common  air.  With  the  re- 
ward which  at  other  times  as  well  as  those,  has  been 
held  fitting  by  human  justice  for  the  earth's  great 
ones,  he  passed  away  in  smoke  and  flame  to 
rest."  ^ 

He  was  attacked  for  his  belief;  but  nothing  was 
wrested  from  him  but  this.  ''  I  protest  before  God 
and  our  Saviour  Christ  and  all  that  believe  in  him, 
that  I  hold,  of  the  souls  that  are  departed,  as  much 
as  may  be  proved  by  manifest  and  open  Scripture, 
and  think  the  souls  departed  in  the  faith  of  Christ 
and  love  of  the  law  of  God  to  be  in  no  worse  case 
than  the  soul  of  Christ  was  from  the  time  that  he  de- 
livered his  spirit  into  the  hands  of  his  Father,  until  the 
resurrection  of  his  body  in  glory  and  immortality. 
Nevertheless  I  confess  openly,  that  I  am  not  per- 
suaded that  they  be  already  in  the  full  glory  that 
Christ  is  in,  or  the  elect  angels  of  God  are  in. 
Nether  is  it  any  article  of  my  faith  :  for  if  so  it  were, 
I  see  not  but  then  the  preaching  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh  were  a  thing  in  vain.     Notwithstanding 

*  Hist,  of  Eng.  (Lon.  Ed.)  vol.  ii :  p.  498. 
6* 


1/4  The   Immortality   of  the   Soul 

yet  I  am  ready  to  believe  it,  if  it  may  be  proved 
from  open  Scripture."* 

We  have  broken  the  force  of  the  severest  animad- 
versions upon  our  belief;  for  the  church  and  the 
world  will  not  upbraid  us  so  bitterly,  if  they  see  men 
like  Tyndal  yoked  with  us  in  our  forth-putting  of 
the  intent  of  revelation  ;  but  we  have  not  broken  the 
force  of  this  damaging  appeal,  viz.,  that  it  is  to  the 
highest  degree  incredible  that  the  immense  mass  of 
catholic  belief,  within  the  range  of  more  recent  his- 
tory, should  have  coined  such  a  thought  as  that  we 
are  immortal,  with  no  foundation  in  the  least  but 
what  may  have  been  forged  for  it  in  the  brain  of 
man. 

The  bold  polemic,  too,  will  make  a  demand  of  us. 
He  will  say,  Explain  this  prodigy.  He  will  be  right. 
Universal  thought  demands  some  origin.  That 
which  semper,  ubiqiie^  ab  omnibus,  has  been  believed, 
cannot  grow  up  out  of  the  vapors  of  the  night,  but 
must  have  had  an  intellectual  source,  commensurate 
with  the  boldness  of  its  presentations. 

What  is  this  source  ? 

Our  doctrine,  let  it  be  perceived,  is  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  Man,  to  have  fulfilled  his  duty, 
should  have  grasped  what  he  could  of  that,  and  held 
on  to  the  light  as  it  was  bestowed,  until  life  and  im- 
mortality were  brought  to  light  in  the  Redeemer. 
He  fell  from  this  knowledge.  Immortality  in  some 
shape  he  could  not  relinquish.  Immortality  in  ghost 
and  spectre  ;  nay,  in  just  what  shape  he  could  dream, 
after  all  that  was  visible  was  put  away  in  the  sepul- 

*  TyndaVs  Works  (1573),  Pref. 


a  Relic  of  Paganism.  175 

chre,  would  be  just  that  shape  of  the  belief  that  hea- 
then would  be  apt  to  have.  Resurrection  was  too 
unlikely.  It  was  distant ;  nay,  had  been  but  partially 
revealed.  At  any  rate,  it  had  been  lost  ;  and  no 
matter  what  had  been  the  cause,  we  nnay  search  all 
the  books,  and  not  a  trace  of  it  can  be  found,  except 
a  slight  syllable  or  two  among  the  dead  in  Egypt. 
What  was  to  be  done?  Give  up  our  living  again? 
Never.  The  mind  yearns  after  immortality.  The 
manes  of  ancient  Rome,  with  just  the  least  possible 
of  dress  or  form  ;  immortality,  with  scarce  any  sub- 
stance ;  our  thought  and  our  feeling  busily  kept  on 
with  but  little  account  oi  quo  or  qitoinodo, — would  be 
the  natural  device,  and,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  actual 
one.  The  world  peopled  itself  with  shadows,  and  that 
as  the  natural  scheme,  when  the  doctrine  of  our  ris- 
ing had  faded,  or  had  not  yet  been  revived  into  view. 
But,  now,  when  it  zvas  preached,  what  would  be 
natural  ?  When  I  give  a  boy  an  apple  !  Suppose  he 
has  one.  His  little  chubby  hand  holds  it ;  but  I  give 
him  a  brighter  and  a  better!  What  is  the  result? 
He  grasps  both.  This  is  the  simple  history  of  im- 
mortality. Man  is  a  composite  animal,  made  up  of 
different  faculties.  There  is  not  a  trace  of  revelation 
that  he  lives  divided.  When  he  dies,  the  Bible  seem.s 
to  say,  He  dies.  When  he  lives,  it  seems  to  be  by 
rising.  And  yet  that  doctrine  unquestionably  was 
lost.  Refusing  to  be  mortal,  he  conjures  up  the  idea 
of  spirit.  Spreading  over  the  earth,  he  builds  that 
faith  into  his  monuments.  Becoming  a  writer  and  a 
sage,  he  sings  it,  and  weaves  it  into  his  speech.  Be- 
coming imbedded  in  his  literature,  it  is  seated  in  the 


176  The  Immortality  of  the   Soul 

very  heart  of  man.  Christ  comes,  and  brings  another 
resurrection:  but  the  little  boy  clutches  both  apples. 
This  is  our  account  of  immortality.  And  let  it  be  re- 
membered,— if  it  have  a  shadow  of  the  truth,  we  are 
not  the  rationalists  :  we  are  not  the  novices,  greedy 
for  something  new:  we  are  not  the  dotards,  grubbing 
into  the  past :  we  are  not  infidel,  determined  upon 
change  ;  but  we  are  just  the  plain  men  of  the  Word 
of  God,  restricting  ourselves  to  texts,  and  showing 
where  a  Pagan  flood  broke  in  upon  the  fountain  of  the 
Gospel. 

Now,  that  all  this  is  not  mere  impudence,  look  at 
some  facts  that  may  be  noted  : 

First,  these  very  testimonies  of  Tyndal.  *'  The 
heathen  philosophers,  denying  that,  did  put  that 
the  soul  did  ever  live."  And  again,  "  The  Pope  join- 
eth  the  spiritual  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the  fleshly 
doctrine  of  philosophers  together  ;  things  so  contrary, 
that  they  cannot  agree,  no  more  than  the  spirit  and 
the  flesh  do  in  a  Christian  man."  And  then,  '*  Because 
the  fleshly  minded  Pope  consenteth  unto  heathen 
doctrine,  therefore  he  corrupteth  the  Scripture  to 
establish  it.""^ 

Second  ;  worldly  men  have  taken  the  same  view. 
Let  me  quote  from  Macaulay.  "■  At  length  the 
darkness  begins  to  break  ;  and  the  country  which 
had  been  lost  to  view  as  Britain,  reappears  as  Eng- 
land. The  conversion  of  the  Saxon  colonists  to 
Christianity  was  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  salutary 
revolutions.  It  is  true  that  the  Church  had  been 
deeply  corrupted  both  by  that  superstition  and  by 

*   TyndaFs  Works  (1573),  p.  324. 


a   Relic   of  Paganism.  \77 

that  philosophy  against  which  she  had  long  con- 
tended, and  over  which  she  had  at  last  triumphed. 
She  had  given  a  too  easy  admission  to  doctrines  bor- 
rowed from  the  ancient  schools,  and  to  rites  bor- 
rowed from  the  ancient  temples.  Roman  policy  and 
Gothic  ignorance,  Grecian  ingenuity  and  Syrian  as- 
ceticism had  contributed  to  deprave  her.  Yet  she 
retained  enough  of  the  sublime  theology  and  benevo- 
lent morality  of  her  earlier  days,  to  elevate  many  in- 
tellects, and  to  purify  many  hearts."  * 

Thirdly;  as  reasoned  out  by  any  competent 
reader  of  the  past,  this  vivifying  of  the  old  Hfe  into 
the  new  can  be  plainly  exhibited.  It  was  so  in  sacri- 
fice. The  old  Astarte  lived  again  on  the  hills  of  Ben- 
jamin. It  was  so  in  ritual.  The  lustrum  bewitched 
the  sacrament.  It  was  so  in  calendar  appointments. 
The  Saturnalia  bestrid  the  feast  day. 

Nor  is  it  uninteresting  that  God  Himself  set  cer- 
tain examples  that  were  perverted.  He  burrowed 
into  what  was  Egyptian.  *'  I  shall  be  that  I  shall 
be"  has  been  uncovered  on  the  Nile.f  He  meas- 
ured temples.  The  court  and  sacred  places  had 
their  patterns  over  the  flood.  There  is  no  jealousy 
of  this  sort  with  the  Almighty.  And  when  our  Sa- 
viour came,  he  borrowed  for  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  Paul  took  all  he  could  from  what  was  Greek 
(Acts  xvii :  28).  And  Christ,  in  all  these  ways,  has 
taught  the  lesson,  that  nothing  is  to  be  despised,  and 
that  what  God  has  cleansed,  that  no  man  is  to  call 
common. 

*  Hist,  of  Eng.  vol.  i :  p.  5- 
I  At  least,  it  is  said  so.     We  doubt  it. 
8* 


178  TJie  Immortality  of  the   Soul 

But,  then,  an  imitating  world  has  gone  too  far. 

What  a  good  thing  it  would  be  if  all  the  borrow- 
ings from  Paganism  were  set  down  in  a  chart.  The 
world  will  learn  more  of  these  things.  Such  men  as 
Aristotle  have  been  teaching  from  their  urns.  Such 
men  as  Plato  have  colored  the  very  books  of  Scrip- 
ture. And  though,  blessed  be  God,  they  have  made 
these  more  full,  and,  for  the  ages  of  time,  more  bold 
and  more  useful  to  the  Church,  yet  no  one  can  read 
the  Evangelist  John  w^ithout  seeing,  that  Plato 
helped  to  shape  him  ;  that  Philo,  or  his  predeces- 
sors, helped  to  choose  for  him  his  points ;  and 
though  all  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  yet  the 
Spirit  moving  the  Apostle  to  resist  those  frauds  that 
were  being  imposed  by  the  men  who  were  the  ex- 
pounders of  these  great  philosophies. 

Now,  what  John  did  not  fence  off,  broke  into  the 
Church.  It  is  horrible  to  see  the  ravages  of  Platon- 
ism.  We  are  occupied  with  it  yet.  And  it  has  fur- 
nished so  much  example  of  the  world  dominating 
over  the  faith,  that  I  need  but  mention  my  plea, 
which  is,  that  it  is  the  commerce  with  the  past  that 
has  made  men  sink  into  the  rut  of  the  soul's  being 
immortal. 


THE  END. 


II. 
WAS    CHRIST    IN   ADAM? 


PREFACE. 


I  KNOW  of  no  authority,  ancient  or  modern,  for 
the  doctrine  I  am  about  to  promulgate.  I  have 
heard  of  something  of  the  kind  in  Vinet :  but  I  have 
searched  his  writings,  though  not,  I  confess,  all  of 
them,  and  find  adverse,  rather  than  favoring,  intima- 
tions."^ It  makes  one  shiver  to  go  on  so  exposed  a 
road,  without  any  company  ;  but  there  are  certain 
mitigating  circumstances  which  it  is  fair  to  quote. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  this  book  would  not  have 
been  so  much  as  thought  of,  but  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  Bible.  Philosophy,  for  the  person  of  Christ, 
seems  vain  and  impertinent.  We  cannot  employ  it 
even  afterward,  when  our  faith  has  been  revealed. 
We  confess  nothing  of  research  or  venture  in  this  di- 
rection. It  certainly  soothes  a  timid  scruple  to 
know,  that,  even  if  this  work  were  a  mistake,  the 
promptings  to  it  have  been  altogether  Scriptural ;  I 
mean  by  that,  it  has   been  in  reading  the  Bible,  that 

*  While  going  through  the  press,  a  friend  sends  us  a  volume  of 
Ining.  We  are  not  in  time  thoroughly  to  study  his  belief;  but  find 
him  accenting  the  peccableness  of  Christ  ;  speaking  of  the  gracious- 
ness  of  His  being  kept  holy  ;  but  not  accounting  for  it  by  federal  de- 
scent ;  and,  therefore,  receding  too  much  away  from  it  again,  when 
arraigned  for  it  as  heresy. 
9 


6  IVas  CJirist  in  Adam  ? 

the  suggestion  has  come,  of  the  mistake  of  the  pre- 
vaihng  Christologies.  There,  too,  we  invite  the 
debate.  We  suspect  that  what  is  old  has  been  a 
philosophy  ;  and  we  offer  the  new  to  be  settled  en- 
tirely by  revelation. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  we  are  cheered  by  great 
simplicity  of  the  texts. 

3.  And  in  the  third  place,  we  hope  to  make  this 
appear.  The  very  newness  may  be  one  harbinger 
of  hope.  There  having  been  no  trial  in  the  church, 
and  no  statements  opposite  recorded  in  the  world, — 
who  knows  what  may  happen  ?  What  seems  so  plain 
to  us,  may  seem  plain,  in  the  same  texts,  to  others. 
There  may  be  a  healing,  as  the  surgeons  say,  "  by 
the  first  intention  ;"  especially,  as  we  reach  a  much 
warmer  faith  ;  making  Christ  more  our  Christ ;  bring- 
ing him  a  great  deal  nearer  to  the  curse  ;  seating  him 
a  great  deal  closer  to  his  people ;  and  lifting  a  great 
deal  higher,  that  righteousness  of  the  cross,  by  which 
humanity  must  obtain  redemption. 

JNO.  Miller. 

Princeton,  Sept.  5th,  1876. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 9 

I. 

REASONS   FOR   THE   OLD   DOCTRINE 13 

CHAPTER   I. 
Christ  One  Person 13 

CHAPTER   II. 
Christ  Born  of  a  Virgin 24 

II. 

REASONS   FOR   THE   NEW  DOCTRINE 28 

CHAPTER  I. 
Christ  and  Man 28 

CHAPTER   II. 
Christ  and  Woman 33 

CHAPTER  III. 
Christ  and  Death 35 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Christ  and  Life 43 


8  Contents, 


CHAPTER  V. 

PAGH 

Christ  and  the  Spirit 5o 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Christ  and  Ransom 56 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Christ  and  Justification 70 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Christ  and  Adoption 73 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Christ  and  Sanctification 76 

CHAPTER  X. 
Christ  and  Ordinances 79 

CHAPTER   XI. 
Christ  and  Glorification S-j 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Christ  and  God 86 


III. 
CONCLUSION 91 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  sixteenth  question  of  "  The  Shorter  Cate- 
chism" is  as  follows, — **  Did  all  mankind  fall  in  Adam's 
first  transgression  ?"  The  answer  is, ''  The  covenant 
being  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for 
his  posterity,  all  mankind,  descending  from  him  by 
ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him, 
in  his  first  transgression." 

It  would  be  hazardous  to  pause  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  doctrine,  for  it  would  delay  and  confuse  us. 
Men  have  differed  about  the  sense  of  imputation. 
Some  have  thought  it  natural.  Some  have  thought 
it  federal.  All  have  thought  it  real  :  but  have  been 
entirely  at  variance  as  to  the  nature  of  the  hereditary 
result.  The  writer  thinks  it  both  natural  and  federal, 
and  that  it  is  stated  so  to  be,  in  the  two  lists  of  texts 
that  are  quoted  by  the  different  polemics.  He  thinks 
it  natural,  like  the  descent  of  a  bad  plant  from  a  bad 
seed.  He  thinks  it  federal,  to  justify  such  a  descent. 
He  thinks  God  has  arranged  the  universe  so  that  like 
produces  like,  but  that,  when  it  comes  to  moral  in- 
telligences, there  must  be  law,  as  well  as  nature: 
there  must  be  the  fact  of  a  moral  adjudication.  It 
will  not  do  to  wave  the  hand,  and  say.  All  perish,  by 
a  fiat  of  nature  ;  but  there  must  be  a  forensic  cause : 


10  IVas  CJirist  in  Adam  ? 

that  is,  the  seal  of  heredity,  in  the  instance  of  man, 
must  be  appHed  by  juridic  rule,  that  God  may  be 
just,  though  he  breed  hereditary  bondsmen  out  of 
all  mankind. 

Not  positing,  however,  the  justness  of  such  a  view, 
we  give  it  merely  as  an  example,  and  fall  back  to  the 
more  universal  ground,  that  sovie  effect  has  been 
transmitted,  of  Adam  upon  man  ;  and  state,  now,  the 
universal  thought,  that  that  effect  has  not  been  a 
heritage  to  Christ,  or  in  any  way  natural  to  him  by 
blood  relationship.  He  has  been  thought  a  new  man, 
foisted  in  upon  our  race  ;  or,  if  that  word  is  connected 
with  the  idea  of  falsehood,"^  then,  grafted  in  upon  it, 
with  no  hereditary  descent,  but  able  to  begin,  with 
quite  unimplicated  nature,  to  take  our  guilt,  and  to 
cut  off  our  hereditary  taint,  by  his  own  independent 
sacrifice. 

Now,  our  object  is  to  point  out  the  opposite  doc- 
trine as  the  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God. 

We  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  an  elected  man  ; 
and,  with  reverence  be  it  spoken,  that  you  or  I  might 
have  been  the  chosen  one  for  the  incarnation  of  the 
Most  High.  We  believe  that  this  is  taught  labori- 
ously, in  plain  terms,  under  both  the  dispensations. 
We  believe  that  he  was  a  child  of  Adam,  and  an  heir 
to  him,  like  you  or  me.  And,  inasmuch  as  this  would 
have  brought  him  into  sin  like  you  or  me,  we  believe 
that  his  birth  of  the  virgin,  and  his  conception  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  was  to  cut  off  this  taint  of  nature.  He 
was ''  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  SEPARATED  f  from  sin- 

*  Fr.  Fausse. 

\  "  Separate''  (E.  V.).  It  is  the  Perfect : — "  that  had  been  sepai'ated /' 


Introduction.  1 1 

ners,  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens"  (Heb.  vii : 
26).  We  beheve,  further,  that,  inasmuch  as  he  could 
not  be  cut  off  from  sin,  except  as  the  effect  of  ran- 
som, Daniel  and  Job  and  Abraham  were  saved  no 
otherwise  than  the  humanity  of  Christ.  Daniel  and 
Job  were  saved  retroactively  ;  and  so  the  person  of 
Christ,  being  made  up  of  God  and  man — of  God, 
quite  unimplicated  by  guilt, — and  of  man,  quite  im- 
plicated by  it,  that  is,  to  the  full  extent  of  a  descent 
from  Adam, — we  believe  that  the  divine  nature  saved 
the  human  ;  that  is,  that  the  glory  of  the  God  (Rom. 
vi  :  4)  and  the  obedience  of  the  man  (Rom.  v  :  19) 
worked  an  entire  emancipation  ;  and  that  the  effect 
of  it  was,  not  simply  to  save  the  dead  Daniel  and  all 
the  millions  of  the  saints,  but  the  millions  and  One  ; 
that  is,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  all  the  millions 
of  his  believing  brethren. 

May  I  beg  that  this  may  not  be  considered  a 
philosophic  venture  ?  It  was  suggested  to  me  by  a 
singular  look  of  passages  of  Scripture. 

Let  my  doctrine  not  be  misunderstood.  I  be- 
lieve Christ  to  be  very  God,  and,  as  such,  Jesus,  that 
is  God  a  Saviour.  But  I  believe  him  also  to  be  very 
man.  And  I  find  him  in  the  Bible,  not  taking  refuge 
behind  his  birth  of  Mary,  but  standing  out  as  though 
a  dead  man  had  he  been  left  to  the  flesh  (i  Pet.  iii : 
18),  and  owing  his  life,  by  ten  thousand  asseverations 
of  the  fact  (Is.  Ixiii :  5  ;  Heb.  ix  :  12),  to  that  ransom 
from  death,  when  he  offered  for  himself  and  for  the 
errors  of  the  people. 

i.  c,  not  separated  after  ^eing  one  of  them,  but,  that,  a  parte  ante,  had 
been  separated. 


12  Was  Christ  in  Adam  ? 

Let  me  be  very  precise,  therefore.  Jesus  Christ 
was  a  child  of  Adam.  Being  such,  he  was  guilty,  as 
being  in  the  loins  of  his  fathers  ;  or,  in  whatever 
manner  all  are  guilty  before  they  are  born  into  the 
world.  As  such,  he  w^as  a  dead  man  according  to 
the  flesh.  As  such,  he  needed  a  ransom  ;  and  won 
it,  when  he  broke  the  bands  of  death  for  himself  and 
his  people.  As  such,  he  must  antedate  the  purchase, 
like  Job  or  Samuel.  As  such,  he  must  be  perfect, 
and  must  be  regenerated  from  the  womb ;  nay, 
never  regenerated,  because  never  fallen  :  and  as  such, 
therefore,  gloriously  born  ;  not  needing  a  father;  but 
wrapped,  before  the  possibilities  of  sin — before  his 
very  conception — in  a  birth  of  the  Spirit. 

Christ,  therefore,  was  of  guilty  parentage,  though 
only  of  a  woman  :  he  was  of  a  wricked  nature  by  right 
of  descent ;  its  wickedness,  though  not  its  infirmity, 
being  cut  off  from  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost :  never- 
^heless  he  had  to  keep  that  holiness,  and  win  it 
further,  by  hard  trials  of  temptation  :  and  herein  lay 
his  torture  :  He  resisted  even  unto  blood  (Heb.  xii : 
4);  and,  being  "obedient  unto  death,"  (Phil,  ii :  8), 
he  was  made  '*  perfect  through  sufferings"  (Heb.  ii : 
10),  and  obtained,  even  for  himself,  "  eternal  redemp- 
tion" (Heb.  ix  :   12)."^ 

*  ''For  us"  (E.  V.)  is  in  Italics.     Such  liberties  shonld  not  be 
taken. 


I. 

EEASONS  FOR  THE  OLD  DOCTRINE. 


CHAPTER   I. 
Christ  One  Person. 


We  tried  the  experiment,  once,  of  offering  our 
doctrine  of  Christ  to  a  distinguished  and  very  judi- 
cious theologian.  We  were  curious  to  see  what 
would  be  his  first  impulse  of  thought  in  taking  up  an 
objection  to  our  idea.  We  were  not  long  in  sus- 
pense. His  mind  seemed  to  strike  at  once  upon  the 
thought,  that  the  God  and  man  in  Christ  were  one 
person,  and  that,  therefore,  it  was  impossible  to  sup- 
pose, that  one  was  glorious  and  divine,  and  the  other 
under  bonds  and  guilty. 

Let  us  state  this  in  dialectic  form. 

1.  Jesus  Christ  is  God  and  man.  The  God  in 
Christ  is  too  unspeakably  perfect  to  unite  himself  in 
eternal  Sonship  with  anything  guilty  or  accursed. 
Such  is  the  first  difficulty. 

2.  Second  ;  Christ  has  a  forensic  unity.  He  is  a 
person  in  court.  The  name  is  above  every  name ; 
and  it  must  have  a  distinct  personal  acceptance,  or 
else  it  could  never  serve  to  stand  in  the  place  of  a 


14  Reasons  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

deceived  and  accursed  people.  This  is  the  second 
obstacle  to  our  thought.  If  Christ  be  condemned 
and  accursed  himself,  the  Vicar  needs  some  substitu- 
tionary victim  ;  and  how  can  God  arrange,  himself 
to  save,  if,  in  the  very  person  of  his  Son,  the  court 
holds  him  as  himself  amenable  ? 

3.  Thirdly  ;  as  to  mediation.  The  parties  are,  the 
King  and  the  rebel.  The  theory  has  always  been, 
that  a  free  substitute  steps  between.  If  Christ  is 
guilty,  what  mediatorship  can  we  conceive  ?  Not 
his  divinity,  for  that  it  is  that  has  been  offended  ; 
and  not  his  humanity,  for  that  is  condemned  itself. 
Where  is  our  resting  place  for  thought,  if  the  days- 
man that  comes  in,  himself  requires  reconciHation, 
and  a  sacrifice  to  save  him  ? 

Now,  as  to  the  whole  argument,  we  beg  to  say, 
that  it  has  a  confession  which  we  will  not  admit.  It 
holds  to  a  rational  appeal.  What  claim  is  there  that 
we  should  be  called  into  such  a  court  ?  We  have 
stated  that,  in  reason,  we  have  been  children ;  that 
we  did  not  travel  that  way ;  that  we  were  waked  up 
by  the  inspired  oracle ;  that  we  were  ready  with  a 
bundle  of  texts  ;  and  that  we  were  afraid  that  it 
would  be  imagined  that  we  had  been  seduced  by 
reason,  and  by  the  decoy  lights  of  some  favorite 
scheme  of  heresy. 

We  had  thrown  ourselves,  therefore,  with  uncom- 
mon care  upon  the  mere  dogma  of  the  Book;  and, 
therefore,  had  gathered  up  all  our  part  of  the  discus- 
sion upon  assorted  texts,  the  bundles  of  which  were 
to  mark  the  chapters,  and  give  shape  to  our  dis- 
cussion. 


Christ  One  Person.  15 

Let  me  lodge  the  plea,  therefore,  that  it  is  the  old 
doctrine  that  offends  by  rationalism.  So  seemed  it 
when  this  learned  friend  first  struck  upon  his  reply. 
We  propounded  to  him  texts  of  Scripture.  Our 
reasoning  was  the  mere  mortar  that  coupled  to- 
gether the  assertions  of  the  text.  But  his  was  a  ra- 
tionalistic appeal.  To  appear  in  court,  there  must 
be  a  person.  To  appear  effectually,  he  must  be  re- 
sponsible and  free.  To  be  One  Person  with  God,  he 
must  be  worthy  of  such  a  seat.  And,  to  be  Media- 
tor, he  must  be  his  own  independent  actor  in  the 
field,  exempt  of  all  personal  debt,  and  entering,  as  an 
untrammelled  substitute,  upon  the  enfranchisement 
of  his  people. 

We  protest,  therefore. 

But,  premising  that,  we  meet  the  arguing,  desti* 
tute  as  it  is  of  any  inspiration. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  who  is  to  decide  who  the 
great  Jehovah  may,  or  may  not,  unite  with,  as  One 
Person  ?  It  seems,  he  does  unite  with  a  man  ;  and 
that  man  has  great  infirmities  of  attribute.  He  is 
tempted  (Heb.  ii :  18).  He  is  weak  (Matt,  xxvi  :  41). 
He  is  timid  (Matt,  xxvi :  39).  He  is  mortal  (Heb.  ii : 
14).  He  shrinks  from  the  lot  that  he  encounters 
(Lu.  xxii :  42).  He  is  tempted  in  all  respects  like  as 
we  are,  yet  without  sin  (Heb.  iv:  15).  Moreover  He 
is  despicable  (Is.  xli :  24).  He  is  ignorant  (Mar.  xiii : 
32).  He  is  finite  (Jo.  v:  19).  He  grows  in  wisdom 
and  favor  ;  and  if  he  is  not  accursed  by  heritage  and 
by  covenanted  oath,  it  is  almost  the  only  weakness 
that  has  been  debarred  by  the  decree  that  brought 
him  into  being.     Now,  what  exactly  is  the  objection 


1 6  Reasons  for  tJie  Old  Doctrhic. 

to  the  view  we  take?  It  will  be  said,  God  cannot  be 
incarnated  in  a  sinner.  But  our  view  is,  Christ  was 
not  a  sinner.  He  was  kept  from  being  so  by  his 
own  redemption.  In  his  first  embrace  of  his  God- 
head he  was  sanctified,  and  that  perfectly.  In  fact 
he  never  knew  taint,  because,  by  the  effect  of  his 
atonement,  he  was  created  sinless,  and  God  never 
came  into  unity  with  a  transgressor. 

But  it  will  be  said,  He  was  guilty ;  or,  with  a  little 
difference,  he  would  have  heired  guilt  if  he  had  not 
been  ransomed  ;  nay,  he  may  be  counted  to  have 
been  implicated,  till  his  work  had  saved  him  ;  and  it 
was  incompetent  for  the  Great  I  AM  to  yoke  His  per- 
son with  an  heir  of  Adam. 

Well,  let  us  look  at  that.  There  is  certainly  a 
boldness  in  it  that  looks  like  rationalism.  Let  us 
drive  it  to  be  precise. 

What  is  it  ?  '*  The  temple  of  God  is  holy"  (i  Cor. 
iii  :  17).  There  can  be  no  communion  between  Christ 
and  Belial  (2  Cor.  vi  :  15).  God  could  not  be  tempted 
of  evil  (Jas.  i :  13)  ;  and,  therefore,  he  would  not  have 
linked  his  life  with  that  of  an  apostate  who  had  de- 
scent from  Adam.  But  we  claim  that  he  was  not  an 
apostate  ;  that  he  was  redeemed  from  apostacy.  We 
claim  that  he  was  not  sinful,  but  that  he  was  re- 
deemed. The  gist  of  the  objection,  therefore,  is, 
that  he  needed  redemption  ;  that,  before  all  time,  he 
was  contemplated  as  guilty  ;  and  that,  as  much  as 
you  or  I  ;  he  had  inculpation  from  Eve,  and  would 
have  been  both  sinful  and  accursed,  but  for  the  effect 
of  his  own  redemption. 

Then,  let  us  move  still  closer. 


Christ  One  Person. 


17 


If  guilt  is  the  point,  let  us  know  distinctly  when 
and  how.  He  never  became  personally  guilty,  for 
he  was  enfranchised  from  it  before  he  was  born.  But 
just  there,  where  is  the  reasoning?  Was  it  that  he 
was  by  nature  guilty?  See  then  how  much  is  arro- 
gated for  reason  !  Here  was  a  man  that  was  born  to 
be  accursed.  He  was  decreed  to  be  guilty  for  the 
sins  of  all  mankind.  Such  was  the  structure  of  his 
person.  He  was  conceived  of  as  one  to  be  accursed. 
And,  centuries  before  he  came,  he  had  been  levied 
on,  and  men  had  gotten  into  peace  on  the  faith  of 
the  curse  to  be  laid  on  their  Redeemer.  He  was, 
therefore,  guilty  in  a  most  shocking  way;  for  there 
came  crowding  upon  him,  by  decree,  the  sins  of  all 
that  might  be  forgiven.  Now,  that  must  be  a  bold 
intellect  that  shall  attempt  to  decide,— God  may 
become  incarnate  with  a  man  who  is  covered  over 
with  guiltiness  ;  but  it  must  be  of  one  sort,  and  not 
of  another.  There  is  no  question  of  personal  guilt 
as  the  result  of  personar  transgression,  for  no  one 
impeaches  him  of  that.  But,  of  the  two  sorts  that 
remain,  God  may  become  incarnate  with  man,  if  he 
sustain  superhuman  guilt,  be  it  only  of  the  men  whom 
he  is  to  redeem  ;  but  God  may  not  become  incarnate 
in  man,  if  he  sustain  Adam's  guilt;  that  is  if  he  be 
born  of  an  ungodly  line,  and  must  expiate  his  meas- 
ure of  hereditary  inculpation. 

Such,  then,  is  our  answer.  It  is  not  an  argument, 
but  a  mere  unveiling  of  the  facts.  If  our  adversary 
will  admit  our  exhibition,  we  appeal  from  the  court, 
and  refuse  to  be  tried.  We  are  going  to  bring  texts 
of  Scripture  :  and,  as   to   the   points  in  thesi  in  the 


1 8  Rcasojis  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

case,  we  deny  the  competency  of  reason  to  declare 
that  God  may  become  incarnate  with  man  when  he 
has  the  guilt  of  miillions,  but  may  not  become  incar- 
nate with  man  when  impended  over  by  his  own  guilt, 
that  is,  the  guilt  of  the  act  in  which  all  mankind 
stood  together  in  a  federal  relation. 

2.  And  so,  disposing  of  the  difficulty  that  a  guilty 
heir  cannot  be  one  person  with  the  Almighty,  we 
advance  to  the  second,  which  is  that  a  guilty  heir 
cannot  be  a  free  sacrifice. 

Now,  let  us  inquire  into  this,  with  the  necessary 
thoroughness. 

A  free  sacrifice,  as  a  notion  to  be  applied  to 
Christ,  must  imply  a  freedom  in  either  of  two  partic- 
ulars ;  first,  in  its  being  unincumbered  ;  and  second, 
in  its  being  voluntary  ;  and,  in  both  of  these  respects, 
our  doctrine  would  be  opposed,  as  denying  the  free- 
dom of  redemption. 

But  let  us  look  at  both.  In  the  first  place,  what 
is  meant  by  being  unincumbered  ?  If  Christ  were  a 
sinner,  all  parties  would  agree  that  he  could  not 
atone  for  sin.  But  that  he  should  be  guilty,  all 
parties  agree.  In  the  days  of  Adam,  Abel  left  upon 
Him  guilt.  Christ  was  not  yet  born,  and  yet  Heav- 
en had  settled  that  ;  and  Abel  was  redeemed,  solely 
on  the  faith  that  Christ  should  become  guilty.  It 
soberly  appears,  therefore,  that  Christ  was  a  guilty 
man  long  before  he  came  into  the  world.  It  appears 
that  he  was  federally  guilty  ;  and,  though  all  agree 
that  he  never  was,  and  never  was  to  be,  personally 
sinful,  yet,  under  one  covenant,  he  certainly  was  in- 
volved, and  the  only  question  is,  was  he  so  under  the 


Christ  One  Person.  \g 

other?  Under  the  covenant  of  grace  he  was  born 
with  milHons  of  guiltinesses.  Under  the  covenant 
of  works,  was  he  an  heir  of  Adam's  guilt?  To  say, 
He  decidedly  was  not,  and  to  argue  it  on  the  plea  of 
a  free  sacrifice,  and  to  say,  He  never  could  have 
atoned  for  man,  if  by  nature  he  was  an  heir  to  death, 
and  to  appeal  to  this  as  of  the  alphabet  of  the  cross, 
is  beyond  all  question  rationalism  ;  for  it  pretends 
to  say,  Christ  could  buy  me  off,  if  all  mankind  were 
upon  his  shoulder,  but  not  if  Adam  were;  or,  to 
speak  more  plainly,  he  could  be  considered  a  free 
sacrifice  if  encumbered  with  all  the  lost,  but  not  free 
if  incumbered  for  himself;  that  is,  God,  who  knows 
no  heritage  or  birth,  could  give  price-availing  value 
to  the  man  with  whom  he  chose  to  be  incarnate,  but 
it  must  be  a  price-availing  value  sufficient  only  for 
millions,  and  not  for  the  one  humanity,  descended 
from  Adam,  w^hich  God  has  chosen  to  take  into  union 
with  Himself 

Now,  I  say.  This  is  rationalism. 

And  there  is  a  plain  victory  in  store  for  our  side 
of  the  case,  if  we  say,  Our  appeal  is  solely  to  Scrip- 
ture: grant  that  Christ  never  sinned,  and  that  he 
was  redeemed,  ab  ovo,  from  all  his  guiltiness ;  and 
grant  that  we  are  successful  with  our  Scriptures ; 
and  grant  that  the  Scriptures  show  that  he  bought  off 
the  whole  churchly  body;  and  grant  that  they  ex- 
pressly teach  that  he  broke  the  bars  of  the  pit,  and 
let  himself  out,  as  well  as  his  disciples, — and  we 
may  laugh  at  the  difficulties  of  the  theorist.  Grant 
only  that  he  was  born  sinless,  and  that  that  escape 
from  Adam  was  purchased,  like  yours  or  mine,  and 


20  Reasons  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

no  mortal  is  such  a  practitioner  on  high,  that  he  un- 
derstands the  law  of  the  case,  and  can  rule  that  the 
God  Christ  can  buy  off  the  millions  of  the  church, 
but  cannot  buy  off  the  man  Christ,  when  the  God 
Christ  is  unincumbered  of  descent,  and  is  known  to 
be  the  basis  of  all  the  liquidation. 

And,  in  the  second  place,  in  respect  to  what  is 
voluntary.  It  is  known  that  Christ  was  incumbered 
long  before  he  was  begotten  of  Mary.  God's  share 
in  the  plan  must  be  that  which  is  chiefly  looked  upon 
as  unincumbered  and  voluntary.  God  2t'<7^  free  in  all 
time,  and  yet  not  free  in  one  particular,  viz.,  free  to 
do  wrong  ;  and  it  would  have  been  wrong  not  to 
have  embraced  the  methods  of  redemption.  But,  in 
all  juridic  views,  in  which  we  are  now  only  to  speak, 
God  began  this  scheme  long  before  there  was  any 
bond,  and  before  there  was  any  motive  but  the  eter- 
nal wisdom  which  had  embedded  him  in  his  whole 
decree.  At  that  ancient  time  the  true  ideas  emerge. 
God  was  voluntary.  And  God  was  utterly  unincum- 
bered. There  was  no  Adam  to  implicate  guilt.  On 
the  side  of  the  Almighty,  we  get  the  fullest  idea  of 
an  unincumbered  and  free  Redeemer.  Rut  on  the 
side  of  man  it  is  different,  a  little.  The  Man  appeared 
with  centuries  of  steps  taken  for  him,  and  no  ques- 
tions asked  as  to  his  will.  The  Man  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  with  a  price  upon  his  head.  His  leave  was 
not  asked,  but  millions  of  men  had  been  born  to  life 
upon  his  guiltiness.  This  is  not  altogether  volunta- 
ryism. It  was  voluntary  ;  and  the  Scripture  makes 
much  of  that  account.  But  it  was  voluntary  quo  ad 
hoc.     God  was  in  Christ.     The  eternal  voluntaryness 


Christ   One  Person.  21 

reigned,  and  was  accepted  in  his  nature.  But  it  was 
not  voluntary*  as  it  had  been  in  the  beginning  ;  for, 
already,  millions  had  been  bargained  by  it,  and  im- 
plications had  been  had,  that  would  have  made  it  a 
sin  in  the  Man  if  he  had  not  kept  up  to  the  bargain 
of  the  God. 

So  then,  now,  in  the  other  respect.  If  Christ  had 
his  share  in  Adam,  he  was  where  he  had  been  put  by 
the  will  of  the  Father.  He  was  no  more  implicated 
than  by  us.  If  he  had  to  offer,  first  for  his  own  guilt, 
and  then  for  the  people,  it  is  but  to  show  his  share- 
holding under  both  covenants.  And  to  say,  Reason 
forbids  it,  is  to  uphold  the  sternest  rationalism. 
Quit  of  all  personal  sin,  we  have  carried  the  Saviour 
far  enough  for  logic  ;  and  then,  how  he  came  so, 
whether  by  being  a  novus  homo,  or  by  being  "  the 
first  born  from  the  dead,"  must  be  a  matter  of  reve- 
lation ;  and  he  is  a  bold  rationalist  who  says,  There 
is  freedom  and  chance,  if  Christ  had  no  guilt  from 
Adam,  but  no  freedom  and  no  chance  at  all,  if  he 
had  to  be  washed  from  his  own  guilt,  and  redeemed 
by  his  own  ransom  from  his  own  share  of  the  curse, 
and  born  of  the  Virgin,  to  secure  retroactively  entire 
quickening. 

3.  And  now,  one  thing  more  ;  as  to  our  Mediator. 

*  Christ  says,  "  I  lay  it  down  of  myself ;"  but  he  immediately 
says,  "  This  commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father"  (Jo.  x  :  iS). 
The  very  bloodiest  moment  of  his  life  he  approaches  in  this  way  :— 
•  But  that  the  world  may  know  that  I  love  the  Father  ;  and  as  the 
Father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I  do"(Jo,  xiv  :  31).  "  For  I 
came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me"  (Jo.  vi :  38).  The  sacrifice  was  voluntary,  therefore  ; 
but,  like  the  worship  of  the  blest,  voluntary,  yet  commanded. 


22  Reasons  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

The  argument  here  is,  If  Christ  be  one  with 
Adam,  and  is  himself,  quoad  the  earHer  covenant, 
bound  for  Adam's  sin,  he  is  himself  of  the  party  of 
the  guilty.  And  what  becomes  then  of  the  idea  of  a 
go-between  ?  Being  himself  of  Adam,  and  acting  for 
himself,  the  idea  of  an  inter-nuncial  messenger  seems 
mightily  obscured.  To  all  which  we  reply,  by  charg- 
ing again  a  hardy  rationalism.  A  days-man,  in  the 
instance  of  our  race,  is  a  third  person.  There  is  a 
king,  and  there  is  a  culprit,  and  there  is  a  third  man 
who  lays  his  hand  upon  both.  Nobody  pretends  to 
this  in  the  instance  of  our  Redeemer.  Paul  specially 
demurs,  and  teaches  that  the  whole  thing  is  an  im- 
perfect illustration.  And  the  difficulty  lies  here : 
God  is  one  party,  and  man  another,  but  the  Me- 
diator is  obscured  under  any  theory.  The  Media- 
tor is  also  God,  and  the  Mediator  is  also  man  ;  and, 
even  though  we  were  to  throw  him  out  as  an  actual 
heritor  with  man,  he  would  still  remain  ''  one  body" 
(Rom.  xii  :  5).  He  delights  to  speak  of  himself  as 
the  head  with  the  members.  And,  therefore,  he  is 
really  of  both  parties.  He  delights  to  speak  of  him- 
self as  God  (our  Confession  phrases  it  "  very  God"), 
and  he  delights  to  speak  of  himself  as  man,  and, 
therefore,  under  any  supposable  theory,  he  is  not  a 
mediator  of  any  usual  kind.  And,  therefore,  the 
spell  of  any  sharp  rationalistic  arguing  is  broken. 
Paul  says,  "  Now  a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of 
one,  but  God  is  one"  (Gal.  iii :  20).  And  demurring, 
therefore,  to  the  idea  of  mediation  as  actually  precise, 
he  leaves  us  to  canvass  Scripture.  If  God  is  one,  and 
therefore  a  mediation  within  his  own  substance  must 


Christ  One  Person.  23 

be  of  a  peculiar  kind,  and  man  is  one,  because,  as 
Christ  claims,  he  is  of  one  body  with  his  people,  then 
to  call  Christ  a  Mediator  at  all,  is  but  an  approach 
to  the  truth;  and  to  go  further,  and  say,  Christ 
mediates  for  himself,  does  not  so  far  increase  the 
difficulty  as  to  make  any  appreciable  difference  in  the 
argument  as  based  upon  mediation. 

We  would  mark  Christ  thus  : — He  is  the  offended 
God  :  he  is  also  the  offending  man.  He  is  the  of- 
fended God,  as  being  of  the  same  substance.  He  is 
the  offending  man,  as  being  a  federal  heir  of  our 
apostacy.  He  is  a  mediator  in  but  a  partial  sense  : 
first,  as  separated  from  God  by  his  humanity  ;  second, 
as  separated  from  man  by  his  divinity  (a  mediator- 
ship,  therefore,  thus  far,  rather  as  compound  than  as 
simple)  ;  thirdly,  from  his  being  unlike  man  in  obe- 
dience ;  fourthly,  from  his  being  unlike  God  in  suffer- 
ing: and  fifthly,  from  his  whole  sacrificial  work.  See 
how  this  last  unifies  him.  He  could  not  do  it  as 
God,  from  its  humiliation.  He  could  not  do  it  as 
man,  from  its  atoning  value :  and,  nevertheless,  he 
did  do  it,  and  thereby  stood  out  from  his  race.  And 
it  is  this  blended  One,  thus  standing  out  from  our 
humanity,  that  became  the  Mediator;  God,  on  one 
side,  and  man,  on  the  other  ;  God,  on  one  side,  and, 
therefore,  not  a  mediator  there  ;  and  man,  on  the 
other,  and,  therefore,  not  a  mediator  there  ;  but  a 
mediator  when  united  into  one — a  chosen  member  of 
our  race,  in  whom  the  great  God  was  to  be  incarnate  ; 
who  was  to  stand  representing  all  his  people  ;  who, 
though  weak,  was  never  to  be  lost  by  weakness,  but 
was  to   be   clothed   with  power ;  who,  though  pec- 


24  Reasons  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

cable,  was  never  to  be  allowed  to  sin,  but  was  to  be 
filled  with  the  Spirit  ;  and  who,  though  guilty,  was 
never  to  be  born  in  guilt,  but  was  to  be  snatched 
from  corruption  before  his  very  beginning,  and  was, 
in  this  way,  to  become  mediator — not  as  God,  for 
there  he  is  one,  and  not  as  man,  for  there  he  is  a  party 
too,  but  as  God  and  man,  in  that  middle  position  in 
court,  in  which  he  brings  into  the  case  the  represen- 
tation of  both  natures. 

Christ's  being  one  with  God,  is  not  irreconcila- 
ble, therefore,  in  its  thought,  with  Christ  as  being  an 
heir  of  Adam. 

CHAPTER   II. 

Christ  Born  of  a  Virgin. 

A  READER,  who  shall  have  followed  us  thus  far, 
will  very  probably  throw  off,  with  impatience,  the 
charge  of  rationalism.  Is  not  ours  the  old  doctrine, 
he  will  say  ?  and  therefore,  he  will  feel,  as  I  always 
did,  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  full  of  it.  Where 
did  men  get  it,  he  will  be  ready  to  exclaim,  unless  it 
has  been  the  burden,  all  the  time,  of  the  Christian 
revelation  ? 

Now,  Has  it  been  ?  That  is  exactly  what  we  wish 
to  press.  If  the  Scriptures  be  all  full  of  it,  mention 
fifty — nay,  coming  down  as  Abraham  did,  mention 
thirty — mention  twenty — nay,  mention  ten — give  us 
five  simple  Scriptures  that  make  it  at  all  to  be  un- 
derstood that  Christ  was  not  of  Adam  when  he  came 
into  the  world.  The  pressure  upon  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  even  though  it  be  a  thing  altogether  negative, 


Christ  Born  of  a   Virgin.       •  25 

must  have  its  effect.  Where,  in  all  the  Bible,  do  you 
find  a  passage  that  testifies  of  a  created  Christ ;  of  a 
Christ  superinduced  upon  our  line;  of  a  Saviour  cut 
off,  by  intention,  from  descent ;  an  imitated  man, 
rather  than  one  hereditarily  derived  from  our  ac- 
cursed ancestors? 

There  floats  in  many  a  mind  the  single  sentence, 
**  A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me  :"  but,  besides  the 
singular  fact  that  that  is  not  the  original ;  but  that 
the  original  favors  weakness  and  stupidity  and  deaf- 
ness of  nature  as  native  to  Christ,  and  reads,  "  Mine 
ears  hast  thou  opened  ;"  in  addition  to  all  this, — the 
sentence,  if  it  were  correctly  in  the  Hebrew,  would 
be  but  a  slender  base  on  which  to  build  such  a  sub- 
stantial teaching. 

In  all  the  Bible,  therefore,  there  remains  but  one 
other  passage,  and  that  is,  The  Birth  from  the  Virgin. 
We  had  not  advanced  a  page,  before,  beyond  all 
doubt,  every  body  thought  of  this  imagined  testi- 
mony to  the  separateness  of  the  Redeemer. 

We  are  to  treat  this  argument  in  an  after  part  of 
our  book  ;  but  we  cannot  afford  to  postpone  it.  One 
fact  about  it  now!  There  are  four  considerations 
that  make  it  utterly  inadequate  to  answer  its  end  in 
the  reasoning. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  nothing  natural  to 
answer  to  it.  A  mother's  son  is  just  as  much  a 
heritor  as  a  father's  son.  Intellect,  virtue,  good 
looks,  strength,  and  stature,  are  more  often  inherited, 
many  men  think,  from  the  mother,  than  from  the 
other  side.  But  all  that  apart.  The  question  was 
never  made  practical  but  once.     Beyond  all  manner 


26  Reasons  for  the  Old  Doctrine. 

of  doubt  there  is  not  a  farthing  of  value  to  the 
consideration  that  the  man  hands  down  the  traits, 
beyond  the  thought  that  it  may  be  done  by  the 
woman.     So  much  for  nature. 

2.  Now  for  Scripture.  There  is  not  a  Hne  of 
Scripture  that  explains  the  transaction  this  way. 

3.  On  the  contrary,  thirdly;  we  are  distinctly 
taught  that  Christ  was  a  child  of  Adam — that  he 
was  a  child  of  Abraham — that  he  was  a  child  of 
David.  His  maternal  birth  was  never  for  a  moment 
federally  dwelt  upon.  On  the  contrary,  as  we  shall 
afterward  see,  the  Scripture  delights  to  call  him  a 
*'  Branch" — to  speak  of  his  growling  up  "  from  be- 
neath" (Zech.  vi :  12)  ;  to  speak  of  his  mortal  flesh  ; 
to  speak  of  his  "  being  a  dead  man  according  to  the 
flesh"  (i  Pet.  iii :  18) ;  and  to  talk  of  him  in  all  those 
ways  w^hich  never  relax  for  a  moment  into  any  relief 
by  showing  what  he  gained  from  his  mother. 

4.  Lastly,  his  miraculous  birth  is  explained.  It 
is  necessary,  considering  him  lost. 

Reverse  all  the  usual  ideas.  Consider  him  guilty. 
That  is  ;  in  the  loins  of  his  fathers,  and  as  an  heir  like 
us,  suppose  him  to  be  federally  dead.  Then  suppose 
him  to  be  elect,  and  to  be  chosen,  before  all  time,  to 
be  the  prophet  of  his  people.  Suppose  that  he  is  to 
be  God  ;  that  is,  that  he  is  to  be  the  temple  of  God 
incarnate.  Suppose  that,  on  account  of  this  amazing 
glory,  he  is  a  prince,  and  that  what  he  suffers  is  as 
though  all  suffered,  and  that,  as  he  obeys,  that  is 
sufficient  as  the  obedience  of  all  mankind — I  say,  His 
birth  of  a  virgin  is  necessary  to  inwrap  him  with  the 
Spirit :  he  must  be  holy,  harmless,  separated   from 


Christ  Born  of  a    Virgin.  2/ 

sinners,  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens — to  be  all 
this,  he  must  be  redeemed — to  be  redeemed,  his  hu- 
man part  must  get  a  share  from  his  expiatory  labor 
— to  perform  that  labor,  he  must  be  perfect — to  be 
perfect,  he  must  be  sanctified  from  the  womb,  nay,  he 
must  be  perfect  in  the  earliest  conception  of  his  being 
— and  to  be  so,  he  must  be  born,  not  like  you  or  me 
when  we  are  born  again,  and  not  like  Jeremiah  if  he 
was  converted  from  the  womb,  but  like  his  own  blessed 
self,  born  as  a  *'  holy  thing,"  in  the  womb  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  under  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that, 
though  inheriting  weakness  from  his  mother,  he  might 
be  cut  off  from  sin  by  that  perfect  shrouding  of  his 
nature,  ab  ovo,  in  the  grace  that  sanctifies. 

For  these  reasons  we  think  this  noted  narrative 
to  be  less  against  us  than  in  our  favor,  and  wish  to  be 
distinctly  understood  ; — Our  Christ  is  a  Prophet  like 
us(Deut.  xviii :  15);  infinitely  far  from  us  in  his  di- 
vinity; and  infinitely  better  off  than  we,  in  that  he 
was  regenerated  from  the  womb  ;  but  perfectly  at  one 
with  us  in  his  descent  from  Adam,  and  liable  to  all 
our  curse  through  his  mother's  guiltiness,  were  he  not 
bought  off  by  the  work  which  he  was  yet  to  finish, 
through  his  glorious  Godhead. 


II. 

REASONS   FOR   THE   NEW   DOCTRINE, 


CHAPTER  I. 

Christ  and  Man. 


If  Christ  were  a  new  creation,  and  grafted  by  a 
second  covenant  in  upon  the  body  of  our  race,  care 
would  not  be  taken  to  make  all  our  humanity  one, 
and  to  make  Christ  so  distinctly  as  he  is  made,  a  part 
of  the  aggregate  man. 

This  begins  in  the  very  first  chapter  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  seem  to  delight  to  call  men  iiian,  and 
to  give  no  separate  name  to  Adam  but  this  name 
man  (Adam),  the  name  of  all  mankind. 

Hence  it  is  a  puzzling  thing  to  translate,  in  cer- 
tain passages.  "  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations 
of  man  (Adam).  In  the  day  that  God  created  man 
(Adam),  in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him.  Male 
and  female  created  he  them  ;  and  blessed  them,  and 
called  their  name  man  (Adam),  in  the  day  when  they 
Avere  created.  And  man  (Adam)  lived  an  hundred 
and  thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness, 
after  his  image  ;  and  called  his  name  Seth  :  and  the 
days  of  man  (Adam),  after  he   had    begotten   Seth, 


Christ   and  Alan.  29 

were  eight  hundred  years  ;  and  he  begat  sons  and 
daughters.  And  all  the  days  that  man  (Adam)  lived 
were  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years :  and  he  died" 
(Gen.  v:  1-5).  Another  fragment  (if  we  adopt  the 
idea  of  many  good  men,  that  Moses  under  divine  in- 
spiration selected  from  among  these  ancient  annals), 
confirms  in  the  most  careful  way  this  desire  of  unit- 
izing humanity.  ''  God  said,  Let  us  make  man 
(Adam).  .  So  God  created  man  (Adam)  in  his  own 
image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him  ;  male 
and  female  created  he  them.  And  God  blessed  them" 
etc.  (Gen.  i:  26-28).  And  again,  "The  Lord  God 
formed  man  (Adam)  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  (Adam) 
became  a  living  soul"  (Gen.  ii :  7). 

This  is  one  stage. 

Now,  another. 

"  Let  them  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the 
sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle, 
and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every  creeping  thing 
that  creepeth  upon  the  earth"  (Gen.  i:  26;  see 
also  28). 

David,  thousands  of  years  afterward,  repeats  this, 
**  Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion  over  the  works 
of  thy  hands  :  thou  hast  put  all  things  under  his 
feet"  (Ps.  viii  :  6).  And  Paul,  a  thousand  afterward, 
lifts  this  quite  out  of  the  category  of  a  common  do- 
minion, and  ascribes  it  to  Glorified  Man.  "  P'or 
unto  the  angels  hath  he  not  put  in  subjection  the 
world  to  come  whereof  we  speak.  But  one  in  a  cer- 
tain place  testified,  saying.  What  is  man,  that  thou 
art  mindful  of  him?  or   the   son  of  man,  that   thou 


I^Jl 


30  Reasons  for  the  Ah'iu  Doctrine. 

visitest  him?  Thou  madest  him  a  h'ttle  lower  than 
the  angels :  thou  crownedst  him  with  glory  and 
honor,  and  didst  set  him  over  the  works  of  thy 
hands:  thou  hast  put  all  things  in  subjection  under 
his  feet.  For  in  that  he  put  all  in  subjection  under 
him,  he  left  nothing  that  is  not  put  under  him.  But 
now  we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under  him"  (Heb. 
ii :  5-9).  Why  not  ?  Christ  was  long  since  glorified. 
And  Paul  states  that.  *'  We  see  Jesus  crowned  with 
glory  and  honor."  But  see,  now,  his  blessed  doc- 
trine !  All  saved  humanity  is  to  be  crowned.  That 
is  the  waiting  consummation.  We  are  to  see  the 
kingly  Adam.  And  as  MAN  was  to  "  have  domin- 
ion," we  see  not  yet  all  things  put  under  Jiini 
(Adam).  "  But  we  see  Jesus,"  the  Head  and  Prince 
and  God  :  He  is  glorified  ;  but  not  the  entire  man  : 
the  finest  attestation  we  can  dream  of  His  being  of 
the  one  humanity. 

And  not  only  so :  the  Bible  is  not  only  careful  to 
make  all  humanity  one,  but  it  shows  how.  It  does 
not  leave  us  to  those  realistic  follies  which  make  all 
man  sin  personally,  and  by  whimsical  presence  in  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  a  conceit  so  brainless  that  it  stains 
polemics,  but  it  treats  all  hereditarily,  and  manages 
the  unity  of  man  fed-erally,  and  by  the  matter  of 
^ birth.  Christ,  in  this  way,  holds  of  Adam  all  through 
the  word  of  God.  Paul,  in  his  very  comment  on  the 
Psalm,  viz.,  that  man  is  to  have  dominion,  and  that 
Christ,  who  now  has  dominion,  is  but  a  part  of  man, 
fortifies  that  conception  by  words  that  cannot  be 
mistaken  ;  for  he  says,  "  Both  he  that  sanctifieth, 
and  they  that  are  sanctified,  are  all  of  one :  for  which 


Christ  and  Man.  31 

cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren  ;  say- 
ing, I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  brethren  ;  in 
the  midst  of  the  church  will  I  sing  praise  unto  thee 
(Heb.  ii :  11,  12).  And  so  of  other  passages.  What 
we  find  proved  is,  that  Christ  is  Adam-born,  like  Ta- 
mar,  or  like  Amon,  or  like  any  other  in  the  list  of  his 
progenitors.  The  Bible  makes  no  difference.  In 
settling  for  us  a  creed,  Paul  tells  us  that  He  was 
•'  born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh' 
(Rom.  i:  3).  Antioch  is  to  receive  him  as  ''this 
man's  seed,"  viz.,  David's  (Acts  xiii  :  23).  Isaiah 
discourses  upon  him  as  **  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse" 
(Is.  xi  :  i) ;  nay,  as  ''  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground"  (Is. 
liii :  2).  Zechariah  makes  him  "  grow  up  from  be- 
neath" (Zech.  vi  :  12).  And  Moses  (Deut.  xviii  :  15), 
quoted  afterward  by  Peter  (Acts  iii :  22),  gives  it 
with  almost  startling  plainness.  It  justifies  the  speech 
that  Christ  was  elected  (Is.  xlii:  i),  and  anointed 
(Is.  Ixi  :  i),  and  set  up  (Ps.  ii :  6),  and  ordained  (Acts 
xvii  :  31),  like  Saul  or  David  out  of  the  multitudes 
of  Israel.  For  listen  to  the  language,  *'  Jehovah  thy 
God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet  from  the  midst 
of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me." 

Boldness  seems  the  last  thing  that  the  men  of 
inspiration  seem  inclined  to  fear.  Isaiah  calls  him  an 
abomination  (Is.  xli:  24).  He  says,  He  made  dust 
his  sword,  and  driven  stubble  his  bow  (Is.  xli :  2) ; 
meaning  by  that,  that  the  human  part  of  Christ, 
except  through  Him  that  raised  up  the  righteous 
man,  was  like  what  Zechariah  calls  him,  "  a  brand 
plucked  out  of  the  fire"  (Zech.  iii  :  2).  Hosea  says, 
"  I  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt"  (Hos.  xi :   i).     And 


32  Reasons  for  the  Nciv  Doctrine. 

now,  dwelling  upon  this,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  is  the  whole  gospel  mystery.  Matthew  studs 
his  chapters  with  these  pregnant  quotations  from  the 
prophets.  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  he  says — (and 
surely  he  would  not  load  his  verse  with  mere  puerile 
allusion):  '' He  came  and  dwelt,"  he  says,  "  in  a 
city  called  Nazareth :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  He  shall  be  called  a 
Nazarene"  (Matt,  ii :  23).  Now,  what  are  we  to  un- 
derstand ?  Nothing  trifling,  beyond  all  manner  of 
doubt.  What  are  we  to  understand  by  the  fifteenth 
verse,  '*  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  w^as  spoken 
of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying.  Out  of  Egypt 
have  I  called  my  son"  (Matt,  ii:  15).  The  thing  to 
be  understood  is,  that  Christ  was  an  ''abomination" 
(Is.  xH  :  24) ;  that  he  was  *'  stubble ;"  that  he  was 
*'dust"  (Is.  xli  :  2),  in  his  vile  heredity:  that  he  was 
a  brand  plucked  from  the  burning  as  to  his  claim  by 
birth  ;  and  that  was  what  Matthew  was  seizing  upon 
in  the  historic  allegory.  He  came  out  of  Egypt,  just 
as  all  the  rest  o{  us  come  out  of  the  iron  furnace. 
And  he  was  called  from  Nazareth,  not  only  because 
Nazareth  was  an  ''  abomination,"  but  because  Christ 
was  the  ''  Branch"^'  (Is.  liii ;  2  ;  see  Zech.  iii  :  8 ;  vi  : 
12),  fairly  and  actually  derived  from  our  dead 
humanity. 

We  would  like  to  quote  other  passages.  "  Agur," 
an  allegorical  personage,  is  himself  Christ's  hu- 
manity ;  t  and  he  wonders  at  his  own  relief, — "  Be- 
cause I  am  more  brutish  than  a  man  of  the  better  sort, 

*  Heb.  Nezer — a  branch. 

\  See  the  author's  Commentary  on  Proverbs,  pp.  506-509. 


CJirist  and  Woman.  33 

and  have  not  the  discernment  even  of  a  common 
man,  and  have  not  learned  wisdom,  and  yet  have  the 
knowledge  of  holy  things  :  who  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven  and  come  down  "  etc.,  i,  c,  who  has  ennobled 
such  a  humanity?  (see  the  whole  passage),  the  idea 
being  that  the  man  Christ,  by  any  race-heredity,  and 
by  any  tie  of  flesh,  is  literally ''an  abomination,"  and 
that  this  would  have  come  out  save  for  the  interven- 
tion of  the  Most  High  ;  but  that  from  the  emigrants 
out  of  the  iron  furnace  there  was  to  be  raised  up  one 
who  was  to  be  chosen  before  all  time  ;  who  was  to 
be  lifted  out  of  the  miry  pit  ;  who  was  to  be  known 
before  he  was  in  the  womb  ;  who  was  to  be  sanc- 
tified before  he  came  forth  (Jer.  i :  5)  ;  and  who  was 
to  be  so  tabernacled  in  by  God,  as  to  become  God 
himself;  and  who  was  therefore  to  be  worshipped 
and  adored,  though  but  the  worm  Jacob  (Is.  xli  :  14), 
and  though  effecting  his  triumphs  on  paths  that  he 
could  not  tread  with  his  feef^  (Is.  xli :  2). 

CHAPTER   II. 

Christ   and  Woman. 

Of  course,  if  Joseph  were  the  father,  no  difficulty 
would  occur  in  Christ  as  the  inheritor  of  Adam:  but, 
as  Mary  was  the  mother,  it  still  remains  to  prove 
that  that  makes  the  slenderest  difference  as  to  a  true 
connection  with  our  humanity. 

*  This  is  a  peculiar  expression,  and  means  that  Christ  was  so 
verily  man  that,  like  the  man  Elijah,  or  the  man  Paul,  he  could  not 
follow  the  omnipotence,  and  actually  feel  it,  and  wield  it,  and  tread  in 
the  path  of  it,  in  his  mere  humanity.  His  humanity  did  not  raise  the 
dead  ;  but  only  his  Deity  as  his  humanity  willed  it. 


34  Reasons  for  the  Nciv  Doctrine. 

Notice  this, — Woman  herself  is  introduced  to  us 
in  a  careful  presentation.  She  is  not  brought  from 
a  distance,  as  Christ  is  supposed  to  be,  but  she  is 
bred  of  Adam.  '*  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bones" 
(Gen.  ii :  23),  says  our  old  progenitor.  And  the 
Bible  seems  careful  to  declare  that  *'  she  was  taken 
out  of  man"  (ib.).  Her  very  name  in  Hebrew  {isha) 
betokens  that  (ib.)  ;  and  the  passage  seems  to  delight 
to  declare  that  the  man  and  wife  are  "  one  flesh" 
(v.  24). 

Now  Targums  are  not  more  fabled  and  tradi- 
tionary than  our  glosses  of  the  text.  I  have  searched 
everywhere.  Men  are  called  seed  of  man  (Gen.  xvii  : 
7)  and  seed  of  woman  (Gen.  iii :  15)  ;  and  I  can  trace 
no  difference.  Eve  seems  to  have  imagined  Cain  to 
be  the  Messiah  ;  and  announces  him, — *'  I  have  gotten 
possession  of  the  man  Jehovah"  (Gen.  iv  :  i).  If 
she  had  been  taught  that  much,  why  had  she  not 
been  taught  that  in  an  ordinary  birth  it  was  impos- 
sible ?  Tamar  !  was  her  blood  less  contaminating  than 
that  of  Obed  ?  And  Rahab  !  and  Bathsheba  !  It  has 
often  been  remarked  that  Christ  was  brought  nearer 
to  man  by  the  turpitude  in  some  of  his  mothers. 
Has  all  that  been  folly?  And,  if  so,  why}  Mary 
brought  to  the  temple  a  sacrifice  upon  the  birth  of 
her  child.  And  if  "  the  days  of  her  purification" 
(Lu.  ii  :  22)  were  for  herself,  why  does  the  word 
*'  THEIR  purification"  linger  about  the  old  manuscript  ? 
and  why,  at  any  rate,  in  this  particular  instance  have 
a  sacrifice,  if  immaculate  purity,  even  to  the  extent 
of  their  being  no  heredity  from  Adam,  was  to  be  the 
conception  of  the  birth  ? 


Christ  and  Death.  35 

Why,  moreover,  had  Christ  to  pay  a  ransom  as 
the  first  born  ? 


CHAPTER  III. 

Christ  and  Death. 

If  Christ,  though  woman-born,  was  an  heir  of 
Adam,  and,  as  Peter  expresses  it,  of  the  fruit  of  the 
loins  of  David  (Acts  ii :  30),  he  is  brought  squarely 
under  the  curse,  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die."  But  our  attention  was  first  excited 
by  passages  far  more  express  than  this.  And  what  we 
wish  to  notice  is  the  exceeding  daintiness  with  which 
the  inspired  writers  pick  out  their  words.  The  sub- 
ject is,  of  course,  a  delicate  one.  Christ  never  sinned. 
And  should  I  select  the  title,  "  Christ  Lost  in  Adam," 
my  language  would  not  be  as  happy  as  that  which 
corresponds  to  it  in  the  living  word.  When  Paul 
says,  "  In  Adam  all  die"  (i  Cor.  xv  :  22),  see  how  ex- 
pert he  is.  He  does  not  make  his  statement  in  the 
past  tense,  but  with  singular  deftness  tells  us  this, — 
that,  ages  after  Adam  (using  the  present  tense),  men 
who  were  in  no  sense  in  the  garden,  now  "  die,"  tem- 
porally and  eternally,  in  consequence  of  his  sin  ;  or, 
as  it  is  tersely  expressed,  ''  in  Adam."  With  like 
skill  are  those  wonderful  passages  that  I  am  about  to 
quote.  When  I  say,  "  Christ  Lost  in  Adam,"  I  in- 
stantly have  to  define.  He  is  not  lost,  in  many  im- 
portant particulars.  He  was  never  lost.  I  mean  by 
that,  Christ  as  God  was  never  lost  at  all.  And  Christ 
as  man,  when  he  actually  came  into  being,  was 
already  saved.     He    never  saw  corruption.     /  was 


36  Reasons  for  the  Nezu  Doctrine. 

never  lost.  That  is,  if  I  belong  to  Christ,  I  was 
covenanted  for  from  eternity  ;  and  twenty  centuries 
ago  I  was  paid  for :  so  that  I  could  never  have  per- 
ished. But  Christ  was  saved  in  a  far  more  efficient 
sense.  He  never  sinned.  He  never  tasted  actual 
apostacy.  And,  therefore  if  I  were  to  call  my  book, 
'*  Christ  Dead  in  Adam,"  I  should  have  to  show  that 
he  never  died  actually ;  it  would  have  to  be,  that  he 
inherited  death;  nay,  that  he  actually  incurred  death, 
as  one,  by  the  earlier  covenant,  with  the  offending 
Adam  ;  that  he  actually  feared  death,  (Heb.  v  :  7),  as 
we  shall  most  particularly  show  ;  that  he  actually  felt 
death,  in  an  enervated  conscience  (Mar.  xiv :  38 ; 
Heb.  V :  2),  and  in  the  power  of  a  supreme  tempta- 
tion ;  but  that  he  never  succumbed  to  death,  simply 
because  he  was  redeemed  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  meeting 
him  in  the  very  womb  of  his  mother,  and  overshadow- 
ing him  at  the  very  first,  and  saying  to  death,  "  O 
Death,  1  will  be  thy  plague,"  that  death  having  the 
rights  by  heritage,  and  rights  that  would  have  been 
enforced,  were  it  not  for  the  identical  ransom  which 
expelled  it  in  the  children  of  his  people. 

Now,  if  there  are  sentences  that  come  out  that 
tell  all  this,  and  tell  it  in  the  most  emphatic  way,  I 
beg  you  to  notice  how  aptly  they  will  tell  it,  and 
how  the  texts  I  quote  tell  it  at  the  very  first  blow  ;  how 
they  frame  it  in  a  final  shape ;  and  though  they  provoke 
you  to  exclaim,  How  very  strong  they  are!  yet  there 
is  no  room  for  wavering.  I  need  not  say,  They  are 
true  in  that  sense,  but  not  true  in  the  other.  But  they 
have  all  that  digested  at  the  first.  They  have  all  said 
at  a  stroke,  without  the  need  of  returning  limitations. 


Christ  and  Death.  37 

For  example  Peter  says,  *'  Being  put  to  death  in 
the  flesh"  (i  Pet.  iii :    18). 

Now,  in  our  haziness,  we  shroud  this  under  a 
trivial  translation.  We  make  it  refer  to  the  cross. 
Nobody  dreams  that  this  does  not  mean  "  put  to 
death,"  at  all. 

The  verb  {tJianatoo)  occurs  eleven  times  in  the 
Greek.  It  never  means  slain,  or  killed,  but  always, 
"delivered  to  death,"  or  *' made  as  good  as  dead." 
Paul  says,  *'  For  thy  sake  are  we  killed  all  the  day 
long"  (Rom.  viii  :  36).  Three  of  the  cases  refer  to 
religious  persecution  (Matt,  x:  21;  Mar.  xiii :  12; 
Lu.  xxi:  16);  three  others  to  the  counsel  of  the 
scribes  (Matt,  xxvi :  59;  xxvii  :  I  ;  Mar.  xiv :  55); 
each  of  the  six  meaning  to  "  cause  to  be  put  to 
death."  Of  the  three  that  remain,  one  is  the  pas- 
sage, "  dead  to  the  law"  (Rom.  vii :  4)  ;  another  the 
expression,  "  chastened  and  not  killed"  (2  Cor.  vi : 
9) ;  meaning  *'  not  delivered  over  to  death  :"  and  the 
only  remaining  one  is  that  in  Romans:  let  me  read 
the  whole  of  it  ; — "  If  ye  through  the  Spirit  do  mor- 
tify the  deeds  of  the  body"  (Rom.  viii :  13) ;  mean- 
ing, if  ye  give  them  over  to  die.  This  now  is  the 
skill  I  speak  of.  The  apostle  Peter  does  not  say, 
Christ  was  dead  ;  but  he  says,  '*  Being  made  a  dead 
man,  or  as  good  as  dead."  This  is  the  exact  limit 
of  the  purport  of  my  book.  Being  made  a  lost  man 
by  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit;  which 
may  be  stated  thus — dead  federally,  but  never  al- 
lowed to  see  death, — graciously  redeemed  in  the 
womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  born  of  her,  yet  with- 
out sin  :  or,  returning  to  the  apostolic  language, — "  A 


38  Reasons  for  the  Neiv  Doetrine. 

dead  man  by  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit :' 
by  which  Spirit,  we  go  on  to  hear,  he  was  not  only 
quickened,  but  went  forth  to  quicken  others.  He 
went  into  this  great  "prison"  house  of  earth,  and 
preached  to  its  dead  spirits  (i  Pet.  iv  :  6);  not  al- 
ways as  man,  for  he  was  not  man  always  ;  but  to 
spirits  ''who  at  any  time  (pote)  were  disobedient,  when 
once  the  long  suffering  of  God  has  waited  in  days  of 
Noah,"  that  is,  in  days  like  those  of  Noah,  *'  an  ark 
being  a  preparing."  We  are  carried  too  far,  how- 
ever. A  glance  must  be  enough  for  the  context.* 
Returning  to  the  eighteenth  verse,  we  will  confirm 
it  by  another  from  the  Apostle  Paul.  But  before  we 
do  that,  let  us  restate  its  meaning.  It  means  that 
Christ  was  as  good  as  dead  according  to  the  flesh ; 
for  that  an  old  man  would  have  been  born  within 
him  by  his  fleshly  nature,  and  that  he  would  have 
fallen  into  sin  ;  but  that  he  was  made  alive,  as  a  new 
man,  by  the  work  of  the  Spirit ;  and  that  the  new 
man  utterly  destroyed  the  old  ;  not  its  infirmities 
(Heb.  v:  2);  not,  at  all,  its  peccableness  (Heb.  v: 
7);  not,  least  of  all,  its  tempted  nature  (Matt,  iv:  i) ; 
but  its  actual  sinfulness  ;  not  as  in  his  glorified  state, 
but  by  the  naked  power  and  overbalancing  mastery 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.     This  is  Peter's  testimony. 

Now  for  another  apostle. 

When  Christ  was  set  up  from  eternity,  he  was 
decreed  as  the  head  of  the  universe  (Ps.  2).  "  For 
him  were  all  things  created"  (Col.  i :  16).  He  was 
not   created  first,  but  created  centrally.     All  things 

*  See    this  whole  passage   discussed   in   the    Monograph,  "Are 
Souls  Immortal?"  III.  Chap.  V. 


Christ  and  Death.  39 

were  created  around  him  ;  that  is,  as  Paul  expresses 
it,  *' By  him  all  things  consist"  (E.  V.  Col.  i:  17). 
When,  therefore,  not  as  God,  but  as  man,  he  was 
born  into  the  world,  he  was  *'  the  first  born  of  every 
creature"  (Col,  i  :  15).  How?  Not  temporally.  The 
morning  stars  had  sung  together  for  millions  of  ages. 
Then  how  was  he  the  first  born  ?  Why,  logically  : 
in  that  every  thing  else  was  begotten  in  the  very 
first  idea  of  him.  The  universe,  as  a  whole,  was 
decreed  when  Christ  was  decreed.  **  For  by  him  ;" 
and,  as  far  as  this  alludes  to  the  human  nature,  we 
must  take  the  copulative  meaning  of  dia,  as  where 
John  says,  This  is  he  that  came  by  water  and  blood : 
therefore,  making  this  change,  and  applying  it  to 
the  man,  let  us  begin  again, — "  For  with  him,  or  by 
means  of  him,  as  the  unifying  ideal,  were  all  things 
created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or  do- 
minions or  principalities  or  powers  ;  all  things  were 
created  with  him  and  for  him  ;  and  he  is  before  all 
things  ;  and  in  him  all  things  stood  together"  (Col. 
i:   16,  17). 

Now,  using  this  apt  context  as  a  fine  setting  for 
the  clause  which  is  to  be  our  second  in  the  way  of 
proof,  let  us  bring  in  that  clause  at  once.  It  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  next  verse.  It  reads,  "  The  first-born 
from  the  dead."  Now,  how  is  he  the  first  born  ? 
John  repeats  the  sentence — "  The  first  begotten  of 
the  dead"  (E.  v..  Rev.  i :  5).  The  Greek  is  the  same. 
Had  not  Lazarus  been  raised  from  the  dead  ?  How 
singularly  we  lose  Scriptures  by  trivial  interpretations  ! 
Who  would  look  at  these  pregnant  utterances,  and 


40  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

say,  they  were  thoroughly  satisfied  by  the  idea  that, 
in  the  order  of  time,  Christ  was  the  first  to  break  the 
bands  of  the  grave  ?     But  if  not,  then  where  are  our 
ideas  carried  ?     Precisely  where  Peter's  were  (i  Pet. 
3  :   1 8).    Christ,  before  all  time,  was  decreed  in  Adam. 
When  time  began  he  *'  fell  with"  Adam  ;  at  least  if 
that  be  a  proper  phrase  in  our  "  Confession"  to  apply 
to  all  mankind.     Through  the  flight  of  ages,  till  he 
came,  he  lay  wiih  Adam  ;  and  when  he  came,  he  was 
heir  of  Adam.     As  heir  he  would  have  been  cursed  in 
Adam,  but  for  being  redeemed.    Though  redeemed  he 
zvas  cursed  in  Adam,  by  being  born  infirm  (Heb.  v  :  2). 
He  was  ''begotten  from  the  dead,"  just  as  you  have 
been,   or  I  have  been,   by  the  Holy    Ghost.      And 
he  was  the  ''  first  begotten"  ;  not  that  he  was  regen- 
erated before  Job,  or  before  Abel,  or  Abraham  ;  but 
that,  as  cause,  he  must  be  logically  first;  that  is,  the 
new  birth  of  Abel  must  be  granted  on  account  of  the 
new  birth  of  Christ;  and  the  new  birth  of  Christ, 
though   four  thousand  years  after,  must  precede  in 
court,  that  is  in  the  plan  and  concession  of  the  ver- 
dict, the  new  birth  of  Abel,  because  the  new  birth 
of  Christ  was  necessary  to  that  absolute  obedience 
without  which  he  could  not  have  won  the  new  birth 
of  all  his  people. 

We  speak  of  new  birth,  but  it  must  be  with  un- 
speakable distinctions.  The  new  birth  of  Christ  was 
not  like  yours  or  miine.  It  had  no  old  birth  behind 
it.  He  was  never  born  at  all,  till  he  was  born  sinless. 
He  never  saw^  corruption.  He  was  born  infirm  and 
tempted,  but  he  resisted  perfectly,  as  our  new  birth 
resists  only  partially.     He  was  born  Emmanuel ;  and 


Christ  and  Death.  41 

the  presence  of  the  Godhead  curbed  by  main  strength 
the  forces  of  iniquity.  It  was  done  with  human 
struggle,  hke  ours  or  yours.  But  while  we  succeed 
partially  in  this  prison-house  of  clay,  he  succeeded 
perfectly  ;  though  in  terrible  torment.  And  his  birth 
into  this  fierce  battle  in  which  he  lost  never  a  field, 
was  his  begetting  ;  and  it  was  as  **  First  Begotten," 
because  it  had  to  come  first  to  him  in  the  order  of 
logic  as  the  means  and  the  purchase  of  the  begetting 
of  his  people. 

Of  a  piece  with  these  views  are  many  expressions 
in  the  prophets.  He  is  called  *' elect"  (Is.  xlii :  i). 
Elect  from  among  whom  ?  He  is  called  a  "  Branch" 
(Zech.  iii  :  8).  A  branch  from  whom  ?  He  is  called 
an  ''  abomination"  (Is.  xli :  24).  An  abomination 
why?  And  then,  in  broader  terms,  he  is  called  "  a 
rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse"  (Is.  xi :  i)  and  "  a  root 
out  of  a  dry  ground"  (Is  llii :  2).  He  is  said  to  "  grow 
up  from  beneath"  (Zech.  vi :  12;  see  the  Heb.) 
There  is  the  command,  "  Write  in  it  with  a  pen, — 
Enosh  (that  is,  the  sick,  the  mortal,  the  incurable 
one  :  it  is  the  lowest  name  for  man)  shall  hasten  the 
spoil,  and  hurry  the  prey"  (Is.  viii :  i).  He  says  him- 
self, The  Lord  hath  formed  me  from  the  womb  (Is. 
xlix :  5)  :  The  Lord  God  hath  opened  mine  ear  (1 :  5). 
We  count  this  passage  in  Isaiah  as  throughout  a  tes- 
timony to  our  poor  sin-visited  Redeemer. 

Of  a  like  character  is  much  in  the  Psalms  of  David. 
"  I  will  praise  thee,  for  thou  hast  heard  me,  and  art 
become  my  salvation"  (Ps.  cxviii :  21).  "The  sor- 
rows of  death  compassed  me,  and  the  pains  of  hell 
gat  hold  upon  me :  I  found  trouble  and  sorrow.    Then 


42  Reasons  for  the  Nezu  Doctrine. 

called  I  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  :  O  Lord,  I  be- 
seech thee,  deliver  my  soul"  (Ps.  cxvi :  3,  4).  "  Thou 
hast  delivered  my  soul  from  death,  mine  eyes  from 
tears,  and  my  feet  from  falling"  (ib.  v.  8).  "  Thou 
hast  delivered  my  soul  from  the  lowest  hell"  (Ps. 
Ixxxvi :  13).  When  it  begins  to  speak  of  "  iniquities" 
and  "  sins"  and  "  transgressions,"  the  translators 
shrink  away  at  once  :  but  when  we  remember  that 
the  Bible  uses  the  word  ''  sin"  oftentimes  for  being 
treated  as  a  sinner,  we  are  driven  from  none  of  the 
Messianic  passages.  And  yet  we  are  not  driven  quite 
over  to  the  idea  of  mere  atoning  guiltiness.  Judah 
said,  "  If  I  bring  him  not  unto  thee,  then  I  have 
sinned  against  thee  forever"  (Gen.  xliii :  9  ;  see  also 
I  Ki.  i:  21).  So  that  when  David  said,  "  Heal  my 
soul,  for  I  have  sinned  against  thee"  (Ps.  xli :  4)  ;  or 
when  he  says,  "  Mine  iniquities  are  gone  over  mine 
head  ;  as  an  heavy  burden  they  are  too  heavy  for 
me"  (Ps.  xxxviii  :  4)  ;  or  when  he  says,  "  there  is  no 
soundness  in  my  flesh,  because  of  thine  anger  ;  neither 
is  there  any  rest  in  my  bones,  because  of  my  sin"  (ib. 
V.  3), — we  are  not  to  be  driven  to  dislocate  the  Psalms, 
and  to  separate  Messianic  and  un-Messianic  parts  of 
the  same  brief  poem  ;  nor  on  the  other  hand  are  we 
to  think  of  a  mere  vicarious  guiltiness  ;  but  we  are 
to  think  of  the  guilt,  /.  e.,  in  Oriental  phrase,  the  sin, 
that  lies  closer  than  a  mere  assumption  ;  the  guilt 
that  would  have  been  inherited  from  Adam  ;  the  sin 
that  lay  menacing  from  the  first  moment  of  birth  ; 
the  guilt  that  was  of  Christ  himself,  except  as  kept 
off  by  sacrifice  ;  and  the  sin  that  lay  natural  to  the 
heart,  and  was  kept  couching  for  its  prey,  and  would 


CJirist  and  Life.  43 

have  burst  in  upon  Christ,  were  it  not  for  the  super- 
natural work  of  the  directly  purchased,  because  gra- 
ciously imparted,  agency,  that  had  been  promised, 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Now  we  are  going  on  to  other  chapters.  But  let  it 
be  here  distinctly  intimated, — -All  the  other  chapters 
will  be  proofs  of  this  one.  For  example,  we  are  to 
show  in  the  next  (Chap.  IV.)  that  Christ  was  quick- 
ened, and  that  that  quickening  was  often  spoken  of 
under  the  phrase,  "  resurrection  from  the  dead"  ;  in 
the  next,  that  he  was  quickened  by  the  Spirit  (Chap. 
V.)  ;  in  the  next,  that  he  was  ransomed  (Chap.  VI,)  ; 
then,  that  he  was  justified  (Chap.  VII.),  adopted 
(Chap.  VIII.),  and  sanctified  (Chap.  IX.)  ;  then,  that 
he  was  the  subject  of  humiliating  ordinances,  baptism 
and  circumcision  (Chap.  X.)  ;  then,  that  he  was  glori- 
fied (Chap.  XL)  ;  then,  Jiow  he  was  Jehovah  (Chap. 
XII.);  in  all  which  chapters  one  truth  will  appear, 
viz.,  that  he  was  lost  in  Adam  ;  the  influence  of  each 
being  to  cut  off  the  possibility  of  mistake,  and  to 
show,  in  his  justification  and  sanctification,  hozv  he 
was  lost,  and  how  the  death  of  which  I  have  been 
speaking,  though  it  never  occurred,  was  kept  from 
occurring,  simply  as  our  perdition  is,  by  a  divine 
atonement. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Christ  and  Life. 

Paul,  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  tells  those  Ephesian  Christians  that  they 
were  "  quickened   together  with   Christ."     There   is 


44  Reasons  for  the  Neiv  Doctrine. 

no  flinching  from  the  expression.  Let  us  quote  it 
fully.  "  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love 
wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in 
sins,  hath  quickened  us  together  with  Christ  (by 
grace  ye  are  saved) ;  and  hath  raised  us  up  together" 
(Eph.  ii  :  4-6).  The  phrase  is  direct  :  ''  hath  co- 
quickened  us"  :  and  lest  any  one  should  say,  '*  hath 
co-quickened  us  by  Christ,"  Paul  repeats  the  sen- 
tence in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and  there  pre- 
vents such  a  use  of  the  dative  by  the  actual  preposi- 
tion {sun).  Let  me  quote  here  that  also, — "  Buried 
with  him  in  baptism;  wherein  also  ye  are  co-risen, 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you,  being  dead  in 
your  sins,  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  HATH 
HE  QUICKENED  TOGETHER  WITH  HIM,  having  for- 
given you  all  trespasses"  (Col.  iii  :   12,  13). 

I  beg  you  to  notice  how  your  mind,  clinging  to 
old  thoughts,  puts  some  gloss  upon  the  passage,  that 
will  parry  its  more  natural  consequence.  "  Hath 
quickened  us  together  with  Christ."  Of  course  our 
quickening,  and  Christ's  quickening,  must  be,  at  va- 
rious points,  different  ;  because  Christ's  death,  and 
our  death,  are  different.  Christ's  death  was  never 
reached.  He  never  died  spiritually.  But  hence  is 
best  explained  this  quickening.  He  was  quickened 
from  the  very  womb.  We  are  quickened  not  till  we 
are  converted.  We  are  quickened  only  in  part.  We 
are  quickened  chiefly  at  the  resurrection.  We  are 
born  dead.  But  Christ  was  born  fully  into  life  ;  and, 
therefore,  we  must  mark  a  great  difference  there  be- 
tween him  and  his  people.     And  yet  he  was  born 


Christ  and  Life.  45 

from  the  dead  {ck  nekron).  And  he  was  born  in  view 
of  a  ransom.  And  he  was  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  would  have  been  dead  by  the  flesh,  but  he  was 
"quickened  by  the  Spirit"  (i  Pet.  iii :  i8).  He  was 
like  his  people,  therefore,  in  many  respects  ;  but  he 
differed  in  these  two,— first,  he  was  born  perfect,  and 
born  without  any  interval  of  sin  ;  and,  second,  he  was 
saved  by  himself  We  are  quickened  together  with 
Christ,  but  we  are  quickened  by  a  purchased  Spirit  ; 
and  the  difference  between  that  quickening  and  his, 
is  that  he  bought  for  both  of  us.  His  glorious  Deity 
was  the  foundation  of  a  price  which  his  hard-wrought 
obedience  paid  down  **  for  himself  and  for  the  errors 
of  the  people." 

Let  us  pursue  this  subject  further.  "  God  also 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name 
which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and 
things  in  earth  and  things  under  the  earth"  (Phil,  ii : 
9,  10).  And,  yet,  he  delights  to  throw  himself  with 
his  people.  Nicodemus  says  to  him,  "  We  know  that 
thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God"  (Jo.  iii :  2).  He 
immediately  repHes,  ''  If  ANY  MAN  be  not  begotten 
from  above,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God" 
(v.  3).  The  forms  of  such  teaching  are  endless.  "The 
first  born  from  the  dead":  that  we  have  already 
noticed.  And  Paul  repeats  the  idea  ;  taking  it  away 
from  the  thought  of  the  resurrection  altogether, 
where  he  says,  "  That  he  might  be  the  first  born 
among  many  brethren"  (Rom.  viii :  29). 

Moreover,  in  respect  to  the  resurrection  ;  are  we 
not  quite  at  fault  in  making  that  the  mere  resurrec- 


46  Reasons  for  the  Nezu  Doetrine. 

tion  of  the  body  ?  Notice  certain  passages.  "lam 
the  resurrection  and  the  life"  (Jo.  xi :  25).  Does 
that  mean  the  merely  fleshly  resurrection  ?  Again, 
*'  And  preached  through  Jesus  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead"  (Acts  iv:  2).  This  form  of  summing  up 
occurs  continually.  *'  For  which  hope's  sake,  King 
Agrippa"  (Acts  xxvi :  7)  ; — and  when  we  come  to  un- 
derstand the  apostle's  "  hope,"  it  is,  "  that  there  shall 
be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead."  "  That  I  may  know 
the  power  of  his  resurrection"  (Phil,  iii :  10).  "  Even 
baptism  doth  now  save  us,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ"  (i  Pet.  iii:  21).  Again,  "His  Son 
whom  he  raised  from  the  dead"  (i  Thess.  i  :  10). 
Again,  "  Remember  that  Jesus  Christ  was  raised 
from  the  dead  according  to  my  gospel"  (2  Tim.  ii : 
8).  Again.  "  Determined  {inarg^  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead"  (Rom.  i :  4). 
Now  I  say,  Lazarus's  resurrection,  or  Eutychus's, 
or  Jairus's  daughter's,  or  the  Shunamite's  son's,  are 
no  more  the  boundary  of  these  resurrections  which 
are  the  "  hope"  (Acts  xxvi :  7)  of  the  saints,  than  the 
grave  is  the  boundary  of  the  dominion  of  wickedness. 
Yet  if  they  are  not,  what  do  they  refer  to  in 
Christ  ? 

All  men  have  noticed  this ;  some  with  more 
wakefulness  than  others.  And  yet  it  has  not  dis- 
lodged the  indolent  impression,  that  Christ's  resur- 
rection was  merely  from  the  grave  ;  yet  every  body 
agrees  that  there  is  a  strange  insisting  upon  this, 
considerinf^  the  other  events  more  central  in  his 
history. 

Now,  we  believe  that  Christ's  resurrection  often 


Christ  and  Life.  47 

means  his  resurrection  from  his  death  in  Adam.  **  If 
ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ"  (Col.  iii :  i).  Does 
that  mean  from  the  grave  ?  Let  us  quote  many 
passages.  ''  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same,  in  that  he 
hath  raised  up  Jesus  again"  (Acts  xiii :  33).  Does 
that  mean  corporeally?  No:  for  it  immediately 
adds,  *'  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Some, 
therefore,  have  thouorht  that  the  begettincr  of  Em- 
manuel  was  at  his  resurrection  (Sanctius,  Camero., 
Cor.  a  Lapide ;  see  also  Poli  Syn.).  Why  not  rather 
that  his  resurrection  was  at  his  begetting  ?  Our  doc- 
trine is,  that  Jesus  was  raised  from  the  dead  in  the 
womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  That  is,  that  he  de- 
scended to  her  lineally  apostate,  and  that  he  was 
born  of  her,  not  wicked,  because  he  was  saved,  and 
not  guilty,  because  he  was  redeemed,  and  that  that 
was  his  anastasis,  and  that  all  the  other  facts  of  it, 
viz.,  his  bursting  from  the  grave,  and  his  anastasis 
into  glory,  are  all  a  part  of  what,  in  many  passages, 
are  regarded  as  his  rising  from  the  dead  {ck  nckron). 
And  here  let  me  say,  that  Christ's  bursting  from 
the  grave  is  more  than  we  usually  make  of  it.  He 
was  born  ejtosh  (Is.  viii :  i),  that  is,  a  mortal ;  and 
that  means  more  than  a  mere  sick  body:  it  means  a 
sick  mind.  Sin  belonged  to  him  by  certain  tenden- 
cies of  his  nature  ;  and  he  was  held  up  from  sinning 
by  the  sheer  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  his 
temptation.  Hear  his  account  in  the  Garden  :  "  The 
Spirit  truly  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak"  (Matt, 
xxvi :  41).  When,  therefore,  he  died  upon  the  cross, 
he  shut  his  eye  to  the  great  period  of  death,  and 
finished  it ;  and  did  so  in  a  great  acme  of  tempted 


48  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

agony.  That  is  the  meaning,  in  my  beHef,  of  his 
cry,  Lama  sabactJiani  ?  God  did  leave  him,  till  he 
was  pushed  nigh  to  sin.  And  this  is  the  meaning  of 
those  strong  words  of  revelation,  '*  With  strong  cry- 
ing and  tears  to  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from 
death"  (Heb.  v:  7).  Paul  alludes  to  it,  ^^  Ye  have 
not  yet  resisted  unto  blood,  striving  against  sin"  (Heb. 
xii :  4).  And,  therefore,  the  bursting  of  the  grave 
was  a  new  epoch.  His  soul  came  out  to  a  relief. 
And,  therefore,  the  resurrection  often  touches  this 
part  of  the  anastasis  ;  and  even  the  mouldering  of 
the  body  becomes  a  symbol  of  the  apostacy  that 
Christ  escaped. 

Hence  it  is  that  even  the  ^r^z^^-deliverance  is  so 
much  insisted  on.  "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
hades  ;  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  holy  one  to  see 
corruption."  This  is  constantly  repeated  (Ps.  xvi : 
10,  Acts  ii :  27  ;  xiii :  35).  It  is  insisted  on  in  cases 
where  the  theme  is  spiritual  (Acts  xiii :  34).  It  is 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  David  (Acts  xiii :  36).  And 
his  silent  sleeping,  which  Paul  announces  as  still  sub- 
sisting at  Jerusalem,  is  made  to  glorify  the  difference 
of  a  perfected  and  ascended  Emn>inuel(v.  37). 

Some  of  these  passages  we  must  husband.  And 
yet  we  may  be  too  fearful  of  a  necessary  and  suf- 
ficiently important  repetition.  Why  should  we  not 
quote  often  where  there  are  different  lights?  Notice 
this, — "  Now  the  God  of  peace  that  brought  again 
from  the  dead  (anagagon  ek  nekroji)  our  Lord  Jesus, 
THROUGH  THE  BLOOD  OF  THE  EVERLASTING  COVE- 
NANT" (Heb.  xiii :  20), — our  exact  doctrine.  Again, 
**  Buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death ;  that,  like 


Christ  and  Life.  49 

as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  {ck  nekron)  BY 
THE  GLORY  OF  THE  FATHER,  even  SO  we  also  should 
walk  in  newness  of  life"  (Rom.  vi  14).     "  Raised  from 
the  dead"— How  ?    Why,  to  "  walk"  differently  from 
the  way  he  would  have  walked  if  he  had  been  given 
up  to  death.     That  is  the  very  weight  of  the  passage. 
Further  ;  ''  That  I  may  know  him,  and  the  power  of 
his  resurrection."     What  power  was  there  in  his  res- 
urrection ?     If   he  beat  back  death,    I  can   see  that 
his    perfect  obedience    and    his  entire  sanctification 
would  have  great  power  in  it.     But  what  power  was 
there  in  Lazarus'  walking  out  of  the  grave?     But 
notice  further  ; — ''  That   I    may  know  him,  and  the 
power  of  his  resurrection,  and   the   fellowship   of  his 
sufferings,  being  made  conformable  unto  his  death"  ; 
and  now,  strongest  of  all,  the  object  of  this  wonderful 
"power," — "if  by  any  means  /  might  attain    to  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead"  (Phil,  iii :   10,   11).     Does 
that  mean  the  mere  resurrection  of  the  body  ?    Why, 
all  will  have   that.     Now,  notice  again,—''  That   he 
should  be  the  first  to  rise  from  the  dead"  (Acts  xxvi  : 
23).     "  The  eyes  of  your    understanding  being  en- 
lightened ;  that  ye  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of 
his  calling,  and   what  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his 
inheritance  in  the  saints,  and  what  is  the  exceeding 
greatness  of  his  power  to  us-ward  who  believe,  AC- 
CORDING TO  THE  WORKING  OF  HIS  MIGHTY  POWER  " 
(that  is,  not  like  it,  but  "  according  to"  it),  "  which  he 
wrought  in  Christ  when  "  — What  ?   when  he   revivi- 
fied his  dust  ?     Oh  surely  no  !     "  Which  he  wrought 
in  Christ  when  he  raised  him   from  the  dead"  (Eph. 
i ;   18-20),  that  is  "  enlightened"  his  "  understanding" 


50  Reasons  for  the  New  Docti'ine. 

and  lifted  his  nature,  and  raised  him,  as,  more  slowly, 
he  raises  us,  from  the  grave  q{  sin,  and  from  the  ruin 
of  a  spiritual  apostacy.  Look  further ;  '*  If  vve  be- 
lieve on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead  ;  who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  was 
raised  again  FOR  OUR  JUSTlFlCxVTiON"(Rom.  iv:  24, 

25). 

Now,  we  do  not  deny  that  some  raisings  of  Christ 
refer  to  the  tomb  ([  Cor.  xv :  4);  and  that  some  are 
of  a  mixed  character,  strongly  colored  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  sepulchre  (i  Cor.  vi :  14;  Eph.  i:  20). 
But  we  do  deny  that  some  refer  to  the  tomb  at  all 
(Acts  iii :  26  ;  Rom.  vi  :  4  ;  Eph.  ii :  6) ;  and  we  do 
aver  that  the  main  anastasis  of  Christ,  which  is  the 
great  hinge-point  of  all  the  Testament,  is  his  anasta- 
sis from  death,  viz.,  that  spiritual  death,  which  he 
inherited,  like  you  or  me,  from  his  first  parents. 

This  will  shock  us  less  as  we  proceed  in  the  in- 


CHAPTER  V. 
Christ  and  the  Spirit. 

If  the  anastasis  of  Christ  mean  often  his  entire 
quickening,  then  it  is  interesting  to  see  who  the 
agent  is ;  for  it  brings  him  nearer  to  us,  to  find  that 
the  agent  to  save,  is  the  same  blessed  Spirit  that 
changes  the  heart  of  all  his  people. 

We  might  suppose  it  would  be  his  Deity.  And 
so  it  is  indeed.  But  we  would  suppose  it  would  be 
expressed  that  way ;  that   is,  God   being  incarnate. 


Christ  and  the  Spirit.  5  r 

we  would  suppose  that  He  would  enter  into  the  man, 
and  that  we  would  hear  no  more  of  death  or  weak- 
ness. But  how  infinitely  far  it  is  from  that  !  God 
enters  Emmanuel  with  much  of  the  same  language 
with  which  he  enters  his  people.  Indeed,  the  very 
account  of  his  begetting  is  all  of  that  character. 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ;  there- 
fore also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God"  (Lu.  i:  35)  We 
may  throw,  therefore,  all  the  great  processes  in  the 
hfe  of  our  Saviour  into  one,  and  consider  them  to- 
gether ;  first,  his  begetting;  second,  his  anointing; 
third,  his  raising  from  the  dead.  And  we  may  con- 
sider the  agent  the  same.  It  was  indeed  his  Deity. 
But  the  Bible  delights  to  talk  of  it  as  the  same 
agency  that  is  in  us ;  and,  therefore,  God,  and  the 
Father,  and  the  Spirit,  are  all  talked  of  as  saving 
Christ  ;  that  is,  as  raising  him  from  the  dead. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  "  God."  Let  me  quote  sev- 
eral passages.  '*  We  also  are  weak  with  him,  but  we 
shall  hve  with  him  by  the  power  of  God"  (2  Cor.  xiii : 
4).  Listen  in  Jeremiah, — "  Before  I  formed  thee  in 
the  belly  I  knew  thee  ;  and  before  thou  camest  forth 
out  of  the  womb  I  sanctified  thee  ;  and  I  ordained 
thee  a  prophet  unto  the  nation"  (Jer.  i:  5).  Isaiah  ; 
— "  The  Lord  hath  called  me  from  the  womb  ;  from 
the  bowels  of  my  mother  hath  he  made  mention  of 
my  name"  (Is.  xlix  :  i).  He  hath  "  formed  me  from 
the  womb  to  be  his  servant"  (v.  5).  "  In  an  accept- 
able time  have  I  heard  thee  ;  and  in  a  day  of  salva- 
tion  have  I  helped  thee"  (v.  8).     This   is  his  beget- 


52  Reasons  for  the  Neiv  Doctrine, 

ting  (Rev.  i  :  5):  his  anointing  (Is.  Ixi :  i)  ;  his  rising 
from  the  dead  (Rom.  i :  4) ;  his  perfect  sanctifica- 
tion  (Heb.  vii :  26).  David  uses  all  this  language. 
"Thou  art  my  son,"  God  is  represented  as  saying; 
"this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (Ps.  ii :  7).  *'  Mine 
ears  hast  thou  bored,"  says  another  Psalm  (Ps.  xl : 
6).  One  was  just  as  much  in  the  village  of  Nazareth 
as  the  other.  And  Isaiah  repeats  the  language, 
"  The  Lord  God  hath  opened  my  ear,  and  I  was  not 
rebellious"  (Is.  1:  5);  the  boring  of  the  ear  being 
just  as  much  effectual  calling,  as  the  opening  o{  onr 
ears ;  and  Christ  seems  to  think  it  when  he  says, 
"  Say  ye  of  him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified 
and  sent  into  the  world,  thou  blasphemest,  because 
I  said  I  am  the  son  of  God  ?"  (Jo.  x:  36). 

And  under  the  term,  resurrection  : — "  Wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead"  (Col.  ii :  12).  "Him  that  raised  up  Jesus" 
(Ro.  iv  :  24).  "  Believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead"  (Ro.  x  :  6).  "  He  that 
raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus"  (2  Cor.  iv:  14).  "  Which 
he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him  from  the 
dead"  (Eph.  i :  20).  This  is  soul-raising  as  of  the 
regenerate  sinner.  For  it  is  impossible  to  array 
these  anastasis  passages,  and  say,  They  mean  the 
body.  And  if  they  transcend  the  body,  then  they 
mean  the  soul.  And  if  they  mean  the  soul,  then  they 
mean  more  than  the  soul  at  the  last  day.  And  if 
they  mean  more  than  at  the  last  day,  then  they  mean 
spiritual  life.  And  if  they  refer  to  spiritual  life,  then 
it  is  a  resurrection  from  spiritual  death.     And  if  it  is 


Christ  and  the  Spirit.  53 

so  with  man,  then  it  is  so  with  Christ.  "  We  are 
quickened  together  with  him"  (Col.  ii :  13).  And  if 
it  is  so  with  Christ,  then  the  passages  are  complete 
which  show  that  it  is  by  the  same  agent.  Christ, 
though  Incarnate  God,  yet,  as  man,  was  "  as  good  as 
dead"  (i  Peter  iii:  18),  and  the  agent  to  save  him 
was  the  same  blessed  God  that  quickens  into  life  the 
grace  of  the  meanest  of  his  people. 

2.  Second,  the  "  Father."  There  is  no  scruple 
that  must  always  speak  of  "  the  Spirit."  Christ  says 
boldly,  •'!  live  by  the  Father"  (Jo.  vi :  57).  Paul 
speaks  of  conversion  as  being  sealed.  "  Who  hath 
sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit"  (2  Cor. 
i:  22).  We  are  to  have  a  hegira  from  one  world  to 
another,  and  the  package  is  "  sealed,"  so  to  speak, 
that  our  title  may  survive  the  journey.  '*  Ye  were 
sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise"  (Eph.  i  : 
13).  "Grieve  not  the  holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby 
ye  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption"  (Eph.  iv : 
30).  Neglecting  to  speak  of  the  Spirit,  and  an- 
nouncing the  agent  as  his  "  Father,"  Christ  not  only 
speaks,  by  the  Apostle,  of "  God  the  Father,  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead"  (Gal.  i :  i)  ;  and  not  only 
says  that  the  Father  hath  sanctified  him,  and  sent 
him  into  the  world  (Jo.  x  :  36), — but  he  fixes  upon 
this  thought  of  sealing.  He  says  we  may  count  on 
him  for  eternal  life,  because  he  is  to  be  *'  sealed," 
and  sent  across  the  ages  : — "  Labor  not  for  the  meat 
which  perisheth,  but  for  that  meat  which  endureth 
unto  everlasting  life,  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give 
unto  you  ;  for  him  hath  God  the  Father  sealed"  (Jo. 
vi :  2']'). 


54  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

3.  Thirdly,  '*  the  Holy  Ghost."  And,  under  the 
name  of  this  agency,  the  Bible  seems  to  delight  to 
include  Christ  under  the  soteriology  of  his  people. 
He  is  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  (Acts  x  :  38).  He  is 
quickened  by  the  Spirit  (Eph.  ii :  5).  He  is  raised 
again  by  the  Spirit  (Rom.  viii :  11).  He  speaks  by 
the  Spirit  ;  "  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  meas- 
ure unto  him"  (Jo.  iii:  34).  So,  he  lives  by  the  Spirit 
(i  Pet.  iii :  18) ;  and  is  "justified  in  the  Spirit"  (i  Tim. 
iii:  16);  and  is '' born  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Lu.  i: 
35).  There  seems  to  be  no  point  of  mercy  by  the 
Spirit  in  which  he  does  not  claim  a  brother's  share, 
though  our  Incarnate  Redeemer. 

And,  therefore,  we  may  multiply  instances  to  al- 
most any  extent ; — "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is 
upon  me,  because  the  Lord  hath  anointed  me"  (Is. 
Ixi :  i).  ''  I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him"  (Is.  xlii : 
i).  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him" 
(Is.  xi :  2).  And  even  the  higher  notions  of  Messiah- 
ship,  and  of  being  divinely  begotten,  and  of  specta- 
cular adoption,  as  where  the  Spirit  descends  in  the 
likeness  of  a  dove,  and  abides  upon  him, — all  this, 
the  divine  inspiration  seems  to  take  pains  to  associ- 
ate with  the  history  of  his  people. 

Is  he  begotten?  So  are  we  :  and  he  takes  pains 
to  tell  an  inquirer  that,  just  at  the  first  blush  of  his 
adoration.  "  We  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come 
from  God."  Aye,  but  said  the  blessed  Redeemer,  If 
any  man,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  is  not  begotten  from 
above,  he  cannot  see  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Jo.  iii :  3). 
And  so  Christ,  or,  in  the  Hebrew  language,  the  Mes- 
siah, is  not  a  name  so  separated  from  us  that  we  do 


CJirist  and  the  Spirit.  55 

not  borrow  it.  We  also  are  Christ,  i.  e.,  *'  anointed" 
(2  Cor.  i :  21)  ;  and  the  very  same  word,  kept  from  us 
as  no  ineffable  speech,  isapphed  to  us  again  and  again, 
and  in  the  same  sense  of  sanctifying  (i  Jo.  ii :  27),  in 
both  the  Testaments  (Ps.  cv  :  15).  The  scene  at  the 
baptism  (Matt,  iii :  16)  is  not  to  be  made  pecuHar 
(Acts  ii :  3)  ;  and  though  the  Divine  Son  as  God,  is 
utterly  out  of  our  vision  (i  Tim.  i  :  17)  ;  and  though 
the  Divine  Son  as  man,  because  he  is  God,  is  lifted 
far  above  principality  and  power  (Eph.  i:  21);  and 
though  we  are  to  worship  him,  and  to  trust  our  souls 
to  him,  and  to  recognize  him  as  altogether  above 
us,  both  now  and  at  all  times,  yet  as  man  distinctly 
in  his  own  nature,  born  of  Adam,  and  heiring  from 
him  eternal  death,  we  never  shall  be  simple  till  we 
get  down  to  the  literalness  of  his  actual  curse  ; 
"Anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  x:  38); 
enabled  only  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  offer  himself 
without  spot  to  God  (Heb.  ix:  14);  his  mother 
"with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt,  i :  18);  his 
battle  made  possible  by  the  Holy  Spirit  descending 
and  resting  upon  him  (Jo.  i  :  33)  ;  and  the  meaning 
of  all  this  being,  that  without  all  this  he  would  have 
been  born  a  sinner ;  that  as  Jesus  his  Godhead  was 
his  helper-  ;  but  that  as  Christ  he  had  to  be  striven 
with  like  you  or  me  ;  only  with  enough  of  the  anoint- 
ing to  make  his  sinlessness  complete,  though  des- 
perately wrestled  for  under  the  agonies  of  incon« 
ceivable  temptation. 

*  "Jehovah,   the  Help." 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Christ  and   Ransom. 

If  Jesus  Christ  was  guilty  in  such  a  sense  as  that, 
if  born  unransomed,  he  must,  under  the  old  cove- 
nant, have  been  heir  of  sin  and  death,  we  must  expect 
to  find  passages  that  speak  of  his  redemption.  We 
have  found  passages  that  speak  of  him  as  thanatou- 
menos  {Cha.p.  Ill) ;  and  we  have  found  passages  that 
speak  of  him  as  quickened  (Chap.  IV) ;  and  the  Bible 
delights  to  associate  these  things  with  man,  and  to 
make  the  deadness  and  the  quickening  just  exactly 
that  in  his  humanity  that  might  be  expected  under 
the  curse  of  Adam.  Now,  if  to  be  born  doomed  and 
quickened,  he  must,  in  an  important  sense,  not  be 
born  doomed,  but  be  quickened  a  parte  ante  :  and  to 
be  thus  thoroughly  saved,  he  must  be  redeemed  like 
Job  or  Daniel;  that  is,  as  an  anticipative  result  of  a 
redemption  not  yet  wrought  out  for  himself  and  for 
his  people.  Now,  announcements  of  this  were  that 
which  first  roused  our  attention  to  these  unconsidered 
facts  in  the  life  of  our  Redeemer. 

For  example,  Zechariah  ; — ''  Behold  thy  King 
Cometh  unto  thee;  he  is  just  and  having  salvation" 
(Zech.  ix :  9).  We  glanced  at  the  margin,  and  there 
was  the  tell-tale  rendering, — "  He  is  just,  and  saving 
himself"  ;  and  we  looked  at  the  Hebrew,  and  there 
came  out  the  plain  passive,  ''  A  SAVED  ONE."  And 
even  that  was  not  all  the  intimation ;  for  there  is  a 
pronoun  introduced.     Our  version  strives  to  give  it 


CJirist  and  Ransom.  57 

by  translating  it, — "  He  is  just  and  having  salvation"  ; 
instead  of  simply  saying, — "  Thy  king,  just  and  hav- 
ing salvation."  But  every  body  knows  that  the  ex- 
pressed pronoun  is  emphatic.  The  sentence,  there- 
fore, is  singularly  ripe.  **  Thy  King  cometh,  right- 
eous, and  himself  a  saved  one"  ;  marking  as  you  see, 
with  extreme  exactness,  first,  that  he  was  quickened, 
and,  second,  that  he  was  redeemed, — a  fact  note- 
worthy enough  to  introduce  the  pronoun  ;  for  being 
a  great  lordly  deliverer  himself,  it  was  the  more  re- 
markable that  he  should  be  **  himself  a  saved  one." 

Now,  where  better  bring  in  the  testimony  of 
Paul  ?  We  will  bring  it  first  from  the  Hebrews. 
Everybody  knows  that  the  high  priest  was  a  type  of 
our  Saviour.  Three  times  Paul  says  that  he  offered 
for  himself,  and  for  the  errors  of  the  people.  He 
actually  applies  it  to  Christ.  He  says,  in  the  fifth 
chapter  (vs.  1-3), — *'  For  every  high  priest  taken  from 
among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining 
to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices 
for  sins :  who  can  have  compassion  on  the  ignorant, 
and  on  them  that  are  out  of  the  way,  FOR  THAT  HE 
HIMSELF  ALSO  IS  COMPASSED  WITH  INFIRMITY. 
And,  by  reason  hereof,  he  ought,  as  for  the  people, 
so  also  for  himself,  to  offer  for  sins."  Listen  again, 
**  Who  needeth  not  daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to 
offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own  sins,  and  then  for 
the  people's  ;  for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up 
himself""^  (Heb.  vii :  27).     Again,  **  Into  the  second 

*  Commentators  have  been  unguarded  enough  to  infer  that  he  did 
"  not  need"  to  ofifer  for  himself  ;  but  a  glance  at  the  passage  will  show 
that  the  "  not  needing"  refers  to  the  offering  more  than  "  once." 


58  Reasons  for  the  Nezv  Doctrine. 

went  the  high  priest  alone  once  every  year,  not  with- 
out blood,  which  "  he  offered  for  himself,  and  for  the 
errors  of  the  people"  (Heb.  ix  :  7).  And,  now,  to 
this  last  instance,  which,  beyond  all  peradventure, 
shows  that  this  expression  "  for  himself"  was  pains- 
takingly intended,  is  affixed  another  sentence  ex- 
planatory of  this  last,  and  which,  though  tampered 
with  like  the  passage  in  Zechariah,"^  is  all  the  more 
on  that  account  striking  when  uncovered  of  its  trans- 
lation. Let  us  go  back.  "  But  into  the  second  went 
the  high  priest  alone,  once  every  year,  not  without 
blood,  which  he  offered  for  himself  and  for  the  errors 
of  the  people.  .  .  .  But  Christ  being  come,  an  high 
priest  of  good  things  to  come  by  a  greater  and  more 
perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to 
say,  not  of  this  building;  neither  by  the  blood  of 
goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood,  he  entered 
in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  OBTAINED  ETER- 
NAL REDEMPTION  (for  US."  E.  V.f) 

What  are  we  to  think  of  this  addition  ? 

Why,  we  are  to  think  this  about  it.  We  have 
called  it  "  tampering."  We  mean  quoad  the  effect, 
not  quoad  the  mind  of  the  translator.  The  effect  is 
sad.  It  shrouds  the  Spirit.  But  the  mind  of  the 
translator  was  simply  empty  of  the  thought.  The 
^'  for  us'  was  added,  as  we  say,  to  make  sense.  And 
the  beautiful  doctrine  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  man, 
bone  of  our  bone  and  flesh  of  our  flesh,  and,  as  a 
man,  heired  from  Adam,  as  well  as  heired  from  the 
throne  of  heaven,  had  never  entered  their  belief;  and 

*  "  Righteous,  and  himself  a  saved  one"  (Zech.  ix  :  9). 
f  No  such  Greek  in  the  original. 


Christ  and  Ransom.  59 

therefore,  that  the  Adam-side  of  their  Saviour  had  to 
be  redeemed,  was  not  a  thing  in  waiting,  and  did  not 
rise  to  claim  its  texts,  when  sentences,  plainly  asserting 
it,  were  actually  struggling  in  the  translators'  minds. 

But  let  us  proceed.  I  will  not  pause  upon  the 
Messianic  passages.  The  words  *'  save"  (Ps.  xxii : 
21;  xl :  2;  Ixxix:  i;  Is.  xlix :  8;  Heb.  v:  7),  and 
"  redeem"  (Ps.  xxxi  :  5  ;  Ixix  :  18  ;  Heb.  ix  :  12),  and 
''deliver"  (Ps.  xl  :  13,  17;  Ixix:  14,  15),  bear  singu- 
lar relations  in  respect  to  the  Redeemer.  I  will  not 
dwell  upon  the  sentence,  "  Heal  my  soul,  for  I  have 
sinned  against  thee"  (Ps.  xli :  4;  see  Chap.  HI.  p.  42). 
I  will  not  expound  this  passage, — "  I  will  praise 
thee ;  for  thou  hast  heard  me,  and  art  become  my 
salvation"  (Ps.  cxviii  :  21)  ;  nor  this,  "  Brought  from 
the  dead  {anagagon  ek  nekroti)  our  Lord  Jesus, 
through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant" 
(Heb.  xiii :  20)  ;  for  though  this  last  sentence  dis- 
tinctly teaches  Christ's  quickening  (Col.  ii :  13)  as 
having  been  purchased,  yet  perhaps  mere  quotation 
will  be  enough,  and  we  may  not  load  the  propounding 
of  a  faith  too  much  with  lengthened  comments. 

Passing  by  all  this ;  and  not  noticing,  either, 
*' Jesus,"  JehovaJi  His  Helper  (Matt,  i :  21),  which  is 
the  sense  casual  commentators  give  the  name,  who 
have  no  thought  of  our  doctrine, — I  hurry  on  to  the 
Prophet  Zechariah,  and  to  one  scene  in  his  book 
which  wonderfully  supports  all  that  has  been  said. 

It  was  the  scene  with  Joshua. 

Joshua  was  the  reigning  high  priest.  Joshua  is 
distinctly  announced  as  the  type  of  the  Messiah. 

Not  only  has  he  His  chosen  name,  but,  when  he 


6o  Reasons  for  the  Nezv  Doetrine. 

is  exhibited  on  the  stage,  he  is  called  a  "  sign" 
(Zech.  iii :  8,  see  viarg.),  and  he  is  distinctly  told, 
when  he  is  brought  out  in  state  with  gold  on  his 
head  "  Behold  the  man  whose  name  is  the  Branch" 
(Zech.  vi :   12,  also  iii:  8). 

Not  only  so,  but  the  angel  of  the  covenant  is 
also  present.  It  seems  to  be  a  passage  where  the 
Godhead  and  the  manhood  of  Christ  are  both  im- 
personated (see  Jo.  iii:  13):  and  where  the  God- 
head orders  the  relief  (Zech.  iii :  4),  and  the  man- 
hood receives  it.  Let  me  quote  the  sentences.  "And 
he  shovved  me  Joshua  the  high  priest  standing  before 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Satan  standing  at  his 
right  hand  to  resist  him.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Satan,  The  Lord  rebuke  thee,  O  Satan ;  even  the 
Lord  that  hath  chosen  Jerusalem,  rebuke  thee:  is 
not  this  a  brand  plucked  out  of  the  fire?  Now 
Joshua  was  clothed  with  filthy  garments,  and  stood 
before  the  angel"  (Zech.  iii :   1-3). 

Now  examine  the  poetry  thoroughly.  Who  is 
the  angel  ?  All  say,  Christ  the  God.  And  who  is 
Joshua  the  high  priest  ?  By  the  evidence  of  the 
context  (Zech.  vi :  11,  12),  Christ  the  man.  And 
why  is  the  prophet  so  negligent  ?  Why  does  he 
speak  sometimes  of  the  angel  (iii:  i,  6),  and  some- 
times, as  though  it  made  no  difference,  of  the  Great 
Jehovah  ?  Because  it  makes  no  difference.  Some- 
times the  angel  speaks  (iii :  6),  and  sometimes  Jeho- 
vah ;  (iii :  2)  and  other  passages  are  negligent  in  the 
same  way  (Gen.  xviii :  2,  13,  14);  and  the  meaning 
is  that  the  angel  is  ^  Jehovah  ;  that  is,  that  the  God- 

*  I  mean,  significantly  ;  even  though  he  be  a  common  angel. 


Christ  and  Ransom.  6 1 

head  part  of  Christ  is  God  Almighty.  And  why  is 
Joshua  weak  ?  and  why  docs  Satan  stand  at  his  right 
hand?  and  how  can  he  resist  him,  i.  t\,  play  Satan 
(Heb.)  to  him,  and  act  the  adversary  {niarg.)  ?  Be- 
cause he  is  enosJi ;  that  is,  mortal,  temptable.  This 
is  the  reason  for  what  immediately  follows.  He  is 
not  only  called  the  Branch  '^  (iii  :  8) ;  he  is  not  only 
said  to  grow  up  from  beneath  {jnitahathy  vi :  12)  ;  he 
is  not  only  said  to  be  "  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground" 
(Is.  liii :  2)  ;  but  it  is  boldly  said,  ''  Is  not  this  a  brand 
plucked  out  of  the  fire  ?"  (Zech.  iii :  2).  Moreover 
Joshua  is  said  to  be  "  clothed  with  filthy  garments;" 
and  the  angel,  that  is,  his  Godhead,  stands  and  sees 
the  filthy  garments  taken  away,  and  that  he  be 
clothed  with  a  change  of  raiment  (iii :  3-5). 

Consider  all  this  in  the  simplest  style  of  exegesis, 
and  in  the  light  of  other  passages  where  he  is  called 
"an  abomination"  (Is.  xli  :  24);  where  he  is  called 
"  dust"  and  "  stubble"  ;  where  he  is  said  to  be  "  a 
saved  one"  ;  and  where  he  is  said  to  be  kept  from 
death  (Heb.  v  :  7)  ;  and  where  he  is  said  to  obtain 
eternal  redemption  (Heb.  ix  :  12);  and  what  can  it 
mean  but  that,  forensically,  he  was  "  plucked  out  of  the 
fire"  ;  and  that,  by  right  of  blood,  he  was  '*  filthy";  and 
that,  by  the  hand  of  his  Godhead,  he  was  delivered  ; 
working  out  his  own  relief;  setting  "  a  fair  mitre  on 
his  head"  ;  and  causing  his  iniquity  (forensically 
meant,  see  Chap.  III.  p.  42)  to  pass  from  him  ;  and 
clothing  him  with  other  garments  ?  (Zech.  iii :   1-5.) 

He  is  treated  with  terms,  too,  as  though  he  were 

*  Equivalent  to  our  word  sprout  or  sucker :  meaning  a  young  tree 
out  of  an  old  root. 


62  Reasons  for  the  Nezv  Doctrine. 

a  mere  probationer.  "If  thou  wilt  walk  in  my  ways, 
and  if  thou  wilt  keep  my  keeping,  then  thou  shalt 
also  judge  my  house,  and  shalt  also  keep  my  courts  : 
and  I  will  give  thee  companions  among  them  that 
stand  by"  (Zech.  iii :  7). 

And  this  leads  me  to  speak  more  fully  of  these 
conditions.  First,  the  need  of  them  !  We  have  shown 
passages  that  rate  him  dead(i  Pet.  iii:  18),  and  we 
have  shown  passages  that  bespeak  him  quickened 
(Eph.  ii :  5),'and  now  we  have  presented  some  that  call 
him  ransomed.  Of  course  there  must  have  been  a 
ransom  ;  and  it  is  time  to  speak  of  that,  and  show 
what  was  the  substance  of  the  price  laid  down  for  the 
delivery  of  the  Emmanuel.  Now,  the  Godhead  part 
we  have  already  noticed.  He  was  raised  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father"  (Rom.  vi  :  4).  That 
is,  the  dignity  of  the  God  gave  price  to  the  payments 
of  the  man  ;  and  thus  the  angel  of  the  covenant 
caused  the  filthy  garments  to  pass  away. 

But  what  were  the  payments  of  the  man  ? 

I  think  I  will  satisfy  multitudes  by  saying,  They 
were  two  things,  suffering  and  obedience  ;  and  these 
things  are  more  striking  when  we  weave  them  to- 
gether. Christ  made  his  ransom  out  of  two  things, 
suffering  and  obedience,  and  these  two  maybe  woven 
into  one.  He  made  his  ransom  out  of  a  suffering 
obedience,  or  an  obedient  suffering ;  an  offering 
"  without  spot  to  God"  (Heb.  ix  :  14),  or  an  obedi- 
ence even  unto  death  (Phil,  ii  :  8).  Most  people  will 
accept  this  as  their  own  ransom  ;  and  we  propound 
it  as  the  same  with  the  Redeemer. 

Now,  what  obedience  ?     Most  people  impair  the 


Christ  and  Ransom.  63 

obedience  of  Christ  by  making  it  too  easy.  They 
make  him  God,  and  then,  moreover,  they  make  him 
not  accursed  man.  They  make  him  free  of  Adam. 
And  therefore,  if  he  suffer,  I  mean  if  he  suffer  in  his 
obedience,  they  have  to  make  it  in  some  mysterious 
way.  It  is  *'  the  hidings  of  God's  face."  What  does 
that  mean  ?  Or  it  is  temptation.  But  the  ordinary 
account  of  temptation  is  strangely  mystic.  One 
would  think  Christ  a  child,  and,  with  ample  knowledge 
of  why  God  hid  his  face,  to  be,  so  to  speak,  volun- 
tarily deceived  by  it ;  the  whole  being  a  house  of 
cards  which  we  dare  hardly  breathe  upon,  lest  by  any 
even  child's  question  our  blessed  Saviour  should 
seem  even  less  sensible  than  the  very  thieves  that 
suffered  by  his  side.  But  Oh !  if  he  was  accursed  ; 
that  is,  if  he  had  a  shattered  nature  inherited  from 
Adam  ;  if  it  was  fleshly  (Rom.  viii  :  3)  ;  and  would 
have  fallen  into  sin,  but  for  the  sheer  Spirit  ;  if  his  life, 
therefore,  was  by  God,  and  his  death  would  have  been 
by  the  flesh  ;  then  his  obedience  was  a  splendid  tri- 
umph. We  have  but  to  imagine  a  supply  of  the 
Spirit  barely  sufficient  sometimes  to  secure  him  vic- 
tory (Matt,  xxvii :  46),  to  understand  what  tempta- 
tion meant  ;  what  obedience  in  those  fearful  circum- 
stances denoted  ;  what  its  merit  was,  and  w^iat  its 
triumph  was  in  fighting  our  battle ;  and  why  the 
apostle  should  say  with  so  much  sturdy  emphasis, 
''  Humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore," 
(surely  not  because  he  agreed  to  die  as  Peter 
did) — but  "  Wherefore,"  because  of  his  most  singu- 
lar   and    hard-fought    obedience,    "  God   also    hath 


64  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name"  etc. 
(Phil,  ii :  8,  9). 

Now  the  suffering — what  was  that  ?  We  have 
spoken  of  the  suffering  obedience  :  what  was  the 
obedient  suffering?  And  our  answer  promptly  is, 
Temptation.  We  come  at  once  to  a  full  and  satis- 
factory account. 

Pain  of  body  !  Who  ever  dreams  of  that  ?  Pain 
of  mind  !  Yes,  but  what  sort  of  pain  of  mind  ?  Pain 
of  a;uilt?  How?  and  how  administered?  "  Hidingr" 
of  Jehovah  ?  In  what  way  ?  Nay,  with  what  possi- 
ble result,  if  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  that  it 
was  not  a  deserved  frown,  and  was  part  of  a  splen- 
did self-sacrifice?  Why  must  we  be  so  card-building 
in  our  systems  ?  Rationally,  what  was  it  ?  Do  you 
say  it  was  a  mystery  ?  That  is  surely  a  better  an- 
swer than  the  rest ;  but  why  make  it  ?  If  Paul  says, 
*'  Ye  have  not  yet  resisted  unto  blood,  striving 
against  sin"  (Heb.  xii :  4),  and  that  points  back  to 
many  a  scene  where  we  can  fancy  the  "  great  drops 
of  blood  falling  down  to  the  ground  :"  if,  in  those 
very  moments,  He  exclaims,  "  The  Spirit  truly  is  wil- 
ling, but  the  flesh  is  weak"  (Matt,  xxvi :  41):  if,  in 
prophecy,  he  cries  out,  "  In  the  day  of  my  trouble  I 
sought  the  Lord  :  my  hand  was  stretched  out  through 
the  night,  and  never  ceased  :  my  soul  refused  to  be 
comforted.  I  remembered  God  and  was  troubled  :  I 
complained,  and  my  spirit  was  overwhelmed"  (Ps. 
Ixxvii  :  2,  3)  :  if  he  cries,  just  like  a  common  person, 
''  Will  the  Lord  cast  off  forever  ?  and  will  he  be  fa- 
vorable no  more  ?  Is  his  mercy  clean  gone  forever  ? 
does  his  promise  fail  forever  more?     Hath  God  for- 


Christ  and  Ransom.  65 

gotten  to  be  gracious?  hath  he  in  anger  shut  up  his 
tender  mercies  ?"  (ib.  vs.  7-9)  ;  if  he  break  forth  thus, 
and  then  Luke  tells  us  he  was  tempted  (Lu.  iv  :  2), 
and  gives  us  to  understand  afterward  that  he  was 
most  horribly  tempted  (Lu.  xxii  :  40-43) ;  and  Paul 
discourses  upon  it  thus,  "Who  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh,  when  he  had  offered  up  prayers  and  supplica- 
tions with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  him  that  was 
able  to  save  him  from  death,  and  was  heard  in  that 
he  feared."  (Heb.  v:  7) — I  say,  when  all  this  is  ab- 
solutely volunteered  in  the  word  of  God,  why  should 
we  draw  back  ?  and  I  may  say  further, — Why  should 
we  draw  back  from  a  guilty  Saviour,  I  mean,  guilty 
in  Adam  ?  and  from  a  fleshly  Saviour,  I  mean  in- 
heriting from  Adam  ?  when  he  is  said  to  be  a 
tempted  Saviour  (Heb.  iv  :  15),  and  when  he  seems 
to  have  been  a  ransomed  Saviour  (Heb.  ix:  12), 
when  we  are  distinctly  told  he  was  a  quickened  Sa- 
viour (Eph.  ii  :  5)  ;  and  why  should  we  not  think  his 
temptation  was  his  suffering,  and  his  resistance  was 
his  obedience,  and  that  the  battle  of  it  was  his  merit, 
and  that  the  fierce  throes  of  this  battle  was  the  sub- 
stance of  his  expiation,  and  that  his  expiation,  as 
Paul  declares,  was  "■  for  himself  and  for  the  errors  of 
the  people"  ?  (Heb.  ix  :  7). 

This  really  seems  to  be  a  consistent  and  not  de- 
rogatory judgment  of  faith. 

And  it  agrees  with  many  incidental  glimpses. 

Jesus  Christ  was  to  trample  Satan,  but,  in  tram- 
pling, w^as  to  "bruise  His  heel"  (Gen.  iii :  15).  It 
was  to  be  a  precarious,  dangerous,  and,  to  our  poor 
Lord,  a  hesitating  victory.  And  so  Isaiah  speaks  of 
H 


66  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

it ;  and  shows  how  near  he  was  to  defeat ;  and 
honors  the  Combatant  for  persevering,  and  nursing 
the  mere  spark  of  hope,  till  he  had  received  the  vic- 
tory. "  A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  the 
smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench  ;  he  shall  bring 
forth  judgment  unto  victory  "  (Is.  xlii :  3).  He  shall 
nurse  his  own  graces.  "  He  shall  not  fail  nor  be  dis- 
couraged till  he  have  set  judgment  in  the  earth :  and 
the  isles,"  lost  without  that  ''judgment,"  that  is  with- 
out that  favorable  verdict  won  by  his  expiation,  may 
be  looked  upon  as  "  waiting"  while  it  hung  in  sus- 
pense (Is.  xlii:  4),  and  shouting  over  the  coming  of 
deliverance  (Is.  xlii  :   1 1). 

Now,  another  incident.  Our  blessed  Lord,  all 
through  his  history,  must  have  been  the  victim  of  a 
temptation  so  grinding  as  this, — that,  through  child- 
hood and  youth,  he  must  have  been  waited  upon  by 
sin,  and  watched  for  as  for  a  single  trespass.  Where 
had  he  a  chance  to  grow,  physically  ?  Old  views  about 
that  are  probably  all  wrong.  He  was  fiercely  as- 
saulted sometimes  ;  and,  in  view  of  the  fact  perhaps 
that  physical  life  could  not  have  endured  it  oftener, 
he  had  his  great  trial  seasons.  One  was  in  the  Gar- 
den. We  have  already  said  that  the  worst  seems  to 
have  been  the  very  last  (Matt,  xxvii  :  46)  ;  and  that 
death  came  to  his  relief  when  he  was  pushed  off  to 
the  very  verge  of  his  power  to  endure."^     Now,  how 

*  When  he  cried,  Eli,  Eli,  lama  sabacthani  ?  (Matt,  xxvii :  46). 
If,  in  that  last  moment,  he  had  wavered  and  sinned,  all  would  have 
been  lost.  You  may  say,  He  could  not  have  sinned.  Neither  can 
the  Christian,  to  the  extent  of  final  apostacy.  But  they  can  in  a  veiy 
intelligible  sense.     And  it  was  only  by  "  travail  of  soul"  tis.  Liii  :   11) 


Christ  and  Ransom.  6'j 

could  he  grow  under  this  pressure  as  a  child  ?  It  has 
been,  therefore,  with  extreme  impression  that  we 
have  watched  the  tokens  in  the  Bible  that  our  Sa- 
viour did  not  grow  in  strength  and  beauty.  The 
Psalter  says,  *'  I  may  tell  all  my  bones  :  they  look 
and  stare  at  me"  (Ps.  xxii :  17).  Some  of  these  old 
crucifixes,  cut  in  ivory,  would  be  the  more  authentic 
handling.  "  My  days  are  consumed  like  smoke,  and 
my  bones  are  burned  as  an  hearth.  My  heart  is 
smitten  like  grass  ;  so  that  I  forget  to  eat  my  bread. 
By  reason  of  the  voice  of  my  groaning,  my  bones 
cleave  to  my  skin.  I  am  like  a  pelican  of  the  wilder- 
ness ;  I  am  like  an  owl  of  the  desert.  My  days  are 
like  a  shadow  that  dechneth  ;  and  I  am  withered  like 
grass"  (Ps.  cii:  3-6,  11).  It  may  be  said.  This  is  all 
spiritual ;  and  I  confess  it  might  be.  Show  me  the 
Word  all  full  of  pictures  of  Christ  in  rosy  youth,  and 
of  our  Saviour  in  vigorous  and  glorious  manhood, 
and  I  will  give  these  texts  up.  For  even  if  they 
were  spiritual,  like  many  other  spiritual  intimations 
they  may  have  their  basis  in  history  and  in  fact. 
Show  me  any  ground  to  think  that  Christ  is  to  be 
painted  in  physical  strength,  and  I  will  ^\v^  up  all 
my  notion.  But  if  it  is  the  gloss  of  the  painter  ;  if 
glorious  art  encircles  the  Saviour  with  radiance  ;  if 
he  was  a  man  of  sorrow  ;  if  he  was  so  haunted  by  sin 
that  he  had  no  time  to  grow,  and  so  pressed  by  re- 
sponsibility lest,  as  Solomon  expresses  it,  he  should 
destroy  a  race  of  Kings  "^  (Prov.  xxxi :  3)  ;  if  flesh 

that  Christ  was  able  to  say,  It  is  finished  ;  and  to  reach  the  end,  and 
safely  give  up  the  ghost. 

*  See  Author's  Conjmentary  in  loco. 


6S  Reasons  for  the  N'ezu  Doctrine, 

and  blood  could  not  thrive  under  such  a  weight,  ex- 
cept by  miracle,  and  we  have  no  testimony  of  such 
a  miracle,  and,  indeed,  all  the  oposite  ;  if  our  Saviour, 
as  a  man,  was  a  common  man  (Matt,  xiii :  55  ;  Prov. 
XXX  :  2),  and,  as  he  seems  to  declare,  "  a  less  "  man 
than  John,  whom  he  bears  testimony  to  as  the  great- 
est born  of  women  (Matt,  xi :  11);*  and  if  there  is 
positively  not  one  Scripture  that  bears  any  testimony 
to  Christ's  physical  strength  and  comeliness,  then  we 
may  quietly  finish  our  quotations,  and  quietly  show, 
what  has  delighted  us,  and  surprised  us  not  a  little, 
— that  the  earliest  Fathers  of  the  Church  bear  this 
very  testimony  to  the  stature  and  to  the  looks  of 
Jesus. 

Isaiah  says  "  He  hath  no  form  nor  comeliness  ; 
and  when  we  shall  see  him,  there  is  no  beauty  that 
we  should  desire  him.  He  is  despised  and  rejected 
of  men"  (Is.  liii :  2,  3) :  and  I  go  so  far  as  to  say,  that 
if  he  had  the  superb  appearance  that  we  think  of, 
his  villagers  would  have  been  more  proud  of  him 
(Lu.  iv  :  29).  *'  His  visage  was  so  marred  more  than 
any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the  sons  of  men" 
(Is.  hi :  14).  And  when  they  said  to  him  at  Jerusa- 
lem, "  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old"  (Jo.  viii :  57), 
I  believe  there  stood  before  them  a  man  battered 
and  worn,  broken  by  the  assaults  of  Satan,  with  the 
sweetness  of  grace  breaking  out  upon  his  lips  (Ps. 
xlv:  2),  and  upon  his  eye  (Cant,  v:   16),  but  with  a 

*  This  I  confess  is  a  new  comment,  but  7)nkroteros  never  means 
"  least"  and  if  it  did,  there  is  no  meaning  in  the  sentence.  I  know 
nothing  to  forbid  the  thought  that  Christ  was  lesser  in  mind  and  in 
natural  talent  and  force  than  the  child  of  a  priest. 


Christ  and  Ransom.  69 

feeble  port,  despised  by  the  Roman  soldiers  *  (Matt. 
xxvii ;  27-29),  laughed  at  in  the  palace  of  Herod 
(Lu.  xxiii :  1 1),  and  looking,  with  his  withered  face 
(Is.  liii :  2),  as  though  he  had  borne  the  buffetings  of 
near  *'  fifty  years"  (Ps.  xxii :   17). 

Now,  the  Fathers !  Let  me  press  the  question. 
Where  did  we  get  our  notion  of  Christ  as  strong  and 
beautiful  ? 

"  His  beauty,  says  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  was  in 
his  soul  and  in  his  actions  ;  but  in  appearance  he  was 
base.  Justin  Martyr  declares  him  as  being  without 
beauty,  without  glory,  without  honor.  His  body, 
says  Tertullian,  had  no  human  handsomeness,  much 
less  any  celestial  splendor.  The  heathen  Celsus,  as 
we  learn  from  Origen,  even  argued  from  his  traditional 
meanness  and  ugliness  of  aspect  as  a  ground  for  re- 
jecting his  divine  origin."  f 

Enough  on  this.  We  reject  it  as  a  regular  proof, 
but  suggest  it  as  a  beautiful  illustration  :  that  though 
God  could  have  made  Christ  what  he  pleased,  yet  he 
did  not  make  him  physically  beautiful ;  and  that,  if 
an  heir  of  Adam,  and  having  to  fight  from  his  earli- 
est infancy  sin  and  guilt,  it  would  be  natural  for  one 
daily  haunted  by  temptation,  to  keep  weak  under  it ; 
daily  bringing  heaven  and  all  the  saints  into  the  risk, 
to  wither  under  the  sacrifice  ;  daily  ruined  if  he 
sinned  BUT  ONCE  ;  and  daily  racked  to  commit  some 
sin  of  thought  or  action,  and  daily  deserted  of  God, 
so  that  he  actually  trembled  on  the  verge  of  positive 

*  He  could  not  bear  his  own  cross  (Matt,  xxvii :  32). 
f  Farrar's  Life  of  Christ,  Vol.  i,  p.  149.     Farrar  takes  the  oppo- 
site ground. 


/O  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

transgression, — to  be  just  what  the  Bible  paints  him, 
a  young  old  man,  worn  out  in  the  intolerable  fight; 
warning  others  that  they  were  implicated  in  his  temp- 
tation (Matt,  xxvii  :  41)  ;  telling  them  that  the  spirit 
was  willing  but  the  flesh  was  weak  (ib.)  ;  and  glad,  if 
it  were  possible,  to  have,  either  from  them  or  God, 
help  (v.  38)  or  deliverance  (Jo.  xii :  27). 


CHAPTER    VII. 

Christ  and  Justification. 

We  have  spoken  of  death,  life  and  ransom  in  con- 
nection with  the  Redeemer.  Suppose  we  go  further 
now,  and  speak  of  justification,  adoption  and  sancti- 
fication. 

''Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace." 
Here  we  are  perfectly  at  home.  Christ  is  often 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  an  object  of  grace.  If  he 
was  dead  in  Adam  (i  Pet.  iii  :  18),  and  quickened 
into  life  by  his  birth  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Rom.  1:4); 
and  if  he  purchased  that  quickening  by  suffering  on 
the  cross,  and  by  his  own  God-inspired  obedience, — 
then  that  help  of  the  Godhead  was  a  grace,  and,  on 
the  side  of  man,  it  is  so  spoken  of  through  all  the 
Scripture.  "  The  grace  of  God  was  upon  him"  (Lu. 
ii :  40).  God  pitied  him;  and  he  applied  to  Him  for 
pity  in  a  life  of  supplication  (Lu.  xxii :  44).  Grace 
was  poured  into  his  lips(Ps.  xlv:  2).  ''It  pleased 
the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell"  (Col. 
i :  19).  God  gave  "  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto 
him"  (Jo.  iii:  34). 


CJirist  and  Justification.  yi 

Justification,  therefore,  if  Christ  was  justified  at 
all,  might  appropriate  the  language,  "  an  act  of  God's 
free  grace"  ;  and  we  shall  find  that  the  Bible  does 
appropriate  the  word  "  justified"  (i  Tim.  iii  :  i6)  in 
respect  to  him,  but  makes  modifications  in  the  mode 
of  speech  commensurate  with  his  necessity  of  being 
justified.  *'  Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us 
as  righteous  in  his  sight."  Now  half  of  this  is  true 
of  Christ,  and  half  not  true.  Half  is  not  true  because 
he  had  no  sins  to  pardon.  Half  is  true,  because  by 
nature  he  was  not  righteous  in  God's  sight.  There 
were  the  sins  of  Adam.  He  needed  justification, 
just  as  much  as  any  of  his  people.  And  it  must  be 
a  justification  by  Christ  ;  that  is  to  say,  Christ  him- 
self must  win  his  own  pardon.  And  it  must  be  a  par- 
don made  efficacious  just  as  with  us  ;  that  is  by  the 
dignity  of  the  Godhead  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the 
obedience  of  the  humanity  on  the  other.  Now,  listen 
to  the  prophets  : — "  He  hath  covered  me  with  a  robe 
of  righteousness"  (Is.  Ixi :  lo).  ''  I  the  Lord  have 
called  thee  by  righteousness"  (Is.  xlii :  6).  "  Rejoice 
greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  behold  thy  King  cometh 
unto  thee,  righteous  and  a  saved  one"  (Zech.  ix  :  9). 
All  of  which  will  get  us  ready  for  one  notable  pas- 
sage, which  will  define,  in  the  most  distinctive  way, 
the  actual  difference.  Christ  wins  his  own  ransom. 
That  is  to  say,  the  Godhead  puts  upon  him  a  robe 
of  righteousness  ;  but  he  is  himself  God,  and,  there- 
fore, he  gives  it  to  himself.  Moreover  he  is  an 
anointed  man  ;  and  this  also  is  by  the  grace  of  his 
Godhead  ;  and  this  anointed  man  wins  the  righteous- 


72  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine, 

ness  for  him,  that  is,  works  it  out  by  his  own  bloody- 
sweat.  The  Catechism,  therefore,  is  not  applicable 
to  Christ.  He  is  not  '''accepted''  as  righteous,  re- 
maining sinful.  It  is  not  '' imputed^'  that  he  be 
righteous,  that  righteousness  being  derived  from  an- 
other. Here  is  a  glorious  difference.  He  works  out 
his  own  righteousness.  And  yet  there  is  grace  in 
this, — that  he  does  it  by  the  Spirit.  He  would  be 
as  powerless  as  we,  except  for  the  Spirit.  A  glorious 
righteousness,  sufficient  for  himself,  sufficient  for 
millions,  and  which  actually  does  save  himself  and 
millions  (Heb.  ix:  7),  was  given  to  him.  It  had  dig- 
nity from  God,  and  it  had  possibility  also  from  God  ; 
for  without  God  he  could  not  have  achieved  it.  And 
yet  it  is  not  like  ours :  for  ours  is  his  righteousness 
received  by  faith ;  whereas  his  is  his  own  righteous- 
ness, achieved  by  faith  (Heb.  xii :  2  *),  and  manufac- 
tured, every  inch  of  it,  by  toil  and  risk  under  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now,  the  passage  to  which  we  allude,  is  that  very 
distinctive  one,  *'  Justified  in  the  Spirit"  (r  Tim.  iii : 
16).  It  is  aptly  fashioned.  It  would  apply  also  to  any 
of  us.  But  it  is  the  only  form  of  sentence  that  would 
apply  to  Christ  as  well.  It  may  be  said  of  any  of  us, 
"Ye  are  washed,  ye  are  sanctified,  ye  are  Justified, 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  BYf  THE  Spirit 
OF  OUR  God"  (i  Cor.  vi :  1 1).     We  are  "  justified  in  f 

*  This  passage  interests  me  as  referring  to  the  personal  faith 
of  Christ.  He  is  the  only  perfect  example  of  it :  and  therefore  we  are 
to  look  to  him  "as  the  beginner  and  finisher  of  faith."  *'  Our  faith" 
shows  its  mistake  by  the  Italics. 

f  The  word  is  "  in"  in  both  passages. 


Christ  and  Adoption.  73 

the  Spirit,"  therefore,  as  well  as  Christ  ;  that  is,  it 
requires  the  Spirit  to  give  us  the  faith  by  which 
we  are  justified.  But  it  required  the  Spirit  in  him 
to  be  given  ''without  measure."  It  required  the 
Spirit  to  give  him  the  ground  as  well  as  the  condition. 
It  required  the  Spirit  without  measure;  and  it  was 
the  Spirit  without  measure  that  achieved  the  right- 
eousness that  furnished  the  justification  for  him  as 
well  as  for  his  people. 

He  had  to  be  justified,  however;  and  we  mean, 
out  of  a  native  condemnation  ;  but  it  had  to  be  a 
justification  "  in  the  Spirit."  ''  Mine  own  arm  brought 
salvation  to  me"  (Is.  Ixiii :  5).  It  had  to  be  by  the 
power  of  his  divine  nature  ;  and  by  the  perfect  obe- 
dience wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Christ  and  Adoption. 

When  I  adopt  a  child,  he  is  not  my  child.  But 
when  God  adopts,  the  case  is  figuratively  different. 
He  does  not  hesitate  to  mix  figures. 

"  Adoption  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace  whereby 
we  are  received  as  the  sons  of  God." 

The  Bible  does  not  hesitate,  however,  to  speak 
of  us  as  **  begotten"of  God.  We  are,  therefore,  his 
sons  actually.  Let  me  enumerate  hastily  some  of 
the  passages.  '*  If  any  man  be  not  begotten  from 
above"  (Jo.  iii :  3).  *'  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us 
with  the  word  of  truth"  (Jas.  i:  18).  "He  that 
doeth  righteousness  is  born  of  him"  (i  Jo,  ii :  29). 
4 


74  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

Now,  so  it  is  with  Christ.  It  is  with  Christ  ex- 
actly as  it  would  be  if  he  were  born  like  us.  He 
would  have  to  be  elected  (Lu.  xxiii :  35),  called  (Is. 
xlix :  i),  appointed  (Heb.  i:  2;  iii:  2),  raised  up 
(Acts  xiii :  33),  anointed  (Acts  x:  38),  with  every 
sort  of  other  fact  that  betokened  selection  and  re- 
demption,— to  be  the  man  intended  to  be  Emmanuel. 
And  then,  on  the  other  hand,  "  begetting"  would  be 
just  as  emphatic. 

Let  me  consider  this  grander  side,  first.  Gabriel 
actually  explains  it  to  the  Virgin.  ''  The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest 
shall  overshadow  thee  ;  therefore  also  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God"  (Lu  i :  35).  *'  The  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
on  this  wise  :  When  as  his  mother  Mary  was  espoused 
to  Joseph,  she  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (Matt,  i :  18).  "  That  which  is  conceived  of 
her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (v.  20).  Therefore  now 
let  us  notice  fully  that  he  is  called  the  "  Son  of  God," 
and  that  the  decree  is  four  times  repeated,  "Thou 
art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (Ps.  ii : 
7;  Acts  xiii:  33  ;   Heb.  i :  5  ;  v  :  5). 

And  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  if  our  theory  is  true 
that  he  was  accursed,  and  would  have  been  apostate, 
and  had  to  be  redeemed  ;  if  we  are  to  take  it  to  be 
true  that  he  was  Incarnate  God,  but  that  he  chose 
to  be  incarnated  in  apostate  man,  and  that  in  order 
to  be  so  incarnated  he  had  to  choose  one,  and  to 
choose  him  from  all  eternity,  and  so  beforehand  to 
prepare  for  him  as  to  send  an  angel  to  announce  and 
to  send  the  Spirit  to  beget  him,  so  that  in  an   ac- 


Christ  and  Adoption.  75 

cursed  womb  he  might  nevertheless  be  overshadowed 
with  saving  efficacy  from  the  very  first,— I  say,  if  all 
this  be  so,  "  adoption"  may  well  be  talked  of  as  well 
as  generation  ;  for  then  the  Incarnate  Whole  is  God 
over  all  blessed  forever,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a  se- 
lected mortal,  called  into  the  family  of  the  faith,  and 
called  to  be  the  head  of  it,  and  called  to  be  so  del- 
uged by  the  Spirit  as  to  be  made,  through  blood  and 
agony,  to  obey  to  our  redemption. 

Now  listen  to  such  announcements:  —  ''Mine 
elect :  I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him"  (Is.  xlii :  i). 
"  The  Lord  hath  called  me  from  the  womb"  (Is.  xli : 
2).  '*  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son"  (Matt,  ii : 
15).  '*  I  will  be  to  him  a  father,  and  he  shall  be  to 
me  a  son"  (Heb.  i :  5).  ''  No  man  taketh  this  honor 
upon  him,  but  he  that  was  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron"  (Heb.  v:  5).  "Because  he  hath  appointed  a 
day  in  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained"  (Acts 
xvii :  31).  ''  Born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to" 
the  flesh,  and  ordained  ^  to  be  the  Son  of  God  in 
power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  res- 
urrection from  the  dead"  (Ro.  i :  3,  4).  "  Called  the 
Son  of  the  Highest"  (Lu.  i :  32).  ''  Christ,  the  chosen 
of  God"  (Lu.  xxiii :  35).  "  God  hath  made  that  same 
Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ" 
(Acts  ii :  36).  "  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God 
raise  up   unto  you  of  your  brethren  like  unto  me" 

*  I  translate  "  ordained"  because  the  word  is  derived  from  fixing 
a  boundary,  and  for  the  veiy  consistent  reason  that  the  same  word,  on 
the  same  subject,  in  the  text  from  Acts  just  quoted  before  it,  is  so 
translated. 


^6  Reasons  for  the  Nezu  Doctrine. 

(Acts  iii :  22).  "  Therefore  God  thy  God  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy 
fellows"  (Ps.  xlv  :  7). 

We  quote  amply.  Now  look  at  these.  Not 
severally.  But  look  at  them  in  their  connection.  It 
is  possible  that,  one  by  one,  they  might  be  wrested, 
so  as  to  appear  to  cover  other  ground.  But,  in  their 
most  child-like  apparency,  do  they  not  seem  to  say 
that  God,  having  to  become  incarnate,  chose  a  mor- 
tal ;  and  that  that  mortal  had  to  be  redeemed  ;  and 
that  that  redemption  had  to  be  from  birth  ;  and  that 
that  choice  and  that  redeeming  gives  significance  to 
these  texts  ;  because  that  it  was  "  being  made  per- 
fect, [that]  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salva- 
tion to  all  them  that  obey  him"  (Heb.  v :  9). 


CHAPTER   IX. 

Christ  and  Sanctification. 

It  must  be  continually  kept  in  mind  that  I  am 
not  theorizing  upon  Christ,  but  that  I  am  noting  pas- 
sages of  the  Word  of  God  that  have  been  kept  out 
of  our  theories,  and  that  need  to  be  explained  as 
absolute  averments  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I  am  not 
saying  that  Christ  was  doomed  (Matt,  ii :  15);  or 
that  he  was  raised  out  of  an  apostacy  (i  Pet.  iii : 
18);  or  that  he  was  ransomed  (Zech.  ix :  9);  or  that 
he  was  justified  (i  Tim.  iii  :  16),  and  called  (Heb.  v  : 
10)  ;  and  saying  that  I  could  see  this  from  the  very 
theory  of  such  a  being.  I  could  not.  I  am  only 
saying.  Here  are  these  texts.  I  am  only  pleading. 
They  have  waked  me  up.     Come  and  explain  them 


Christ  and  Sanctification.  77 

with  me.  I  am  helped  by  them  as  stepping  stones ; 
that  is,  I  step  from  one  to  the  other,  but  the  only 
theory  I  make  is  the  link  of  their  connection.  I  do 
say  that  they  all  agree  in  the  idea  that  Christ  was 
lost  in  his  inheritance  from  Adam. 

But,  now,  is  it  not  time  to  pause?  Christ  was 
sanctified  (Jo.  x :  36).  How  possibly  am  I  to  give 
an  account  of  that? 

Sanctification  is  that  change  in  the  sinner  by 
which,  after  his  regeneration,  he  is  weaned  gradually 
from  wickedness,  and  *'  enabled  to  die  unto  sin  and 
live  unto  righteousness."  Christ  teaches  that  we 
*'  must  be  born  again."  Our  doctrine,  therefore,  is, 
that  we  are  ''  converted,"  or  ''  called,"  or  "  regener- 
ated," however  you  choose  to  entitle  it,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  our  religious  history,  but  that,  as  that  only 
imparts  the  germ  of  grace,  we  are  dealt  with  after- 
ward, and  slowly  resist  our  sins,  and  climb  out  of  our 
corrupt  condition. 

Now  what  had  Christ  to  do  with  any  such  slow 
change  as  this  ? 

Our  very  theory  is,  that  he  was  "  begotten"  ;  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  came  down,  and  that  the  power  of 
the  Highest  overshadowed  ;  and,  therefore,  that  that 
"  holy  thing"  had  complete  perfection.  Christ  posi- 
tively never  sinned  ;  and,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his 
being,  his  renewal  was  so  complete,  that  no  touch  of 
iniquity  ever  stained  his  mind. 

But  I   think  we  can   understand   how  a  nature 

could  be  shattered  so  that  by  itself  it  would  sin  (Mar. 

xiv  ;  38;  XV :  34),  and  yet  be  held   up  by  the  sheer 

power  of  Omnipotence  (Hcb.  V  :  7).     I  think  we  can 

15 


yS  Reasons  for  tJic  New  Doctrine. 

understand  humiliation  and  glorification.  I  think  we 
can  understand  sin  kept  off  by  almost  artificial  assis- 
tances, and  sin  scoffed  at  by  a  better  nature,  where 
the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  simply  strive  and  rule,  but 
where  he  lives  and  has  become  settled  in  the  being. 

These  were  the  stages  with  Christ. 

And,  therefore,  we  are  told  positively,  He  was 
sanctified  (Jo.  xvii  :  19).  We  are  told  of  the  means. 
Christ  was  not  sanctified  from  sin  (i  Pet.  ii :  22); 
but  he  was  sanctified  in  some  way.  For  he  was 
sanctified  by  the  word  (Jo.  xvii :  19);  and  he  was 
sanctified  by  suffering.  He  was  made  ''  perfect 
through  suffering"  (Heb.  ii :  10).  "  Though  he  were 
a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which 
he  suffered"  (Heb.  v :  8).  And  we  are  told  that, 
"  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eter- 
nal life  unto  all  them  that  obey  him"  (v.  9). 

Is  there  not  a  shadow  of  how  this  may  be  in  the 
history  of  man  ?  How  are  we  sanctified  ?  We  gain 
strength  as  well  as  purity.  We  are  not  only  weaned 
from  sin,  but  we  gather  life  in  our  second  nature  by 
the  battle  we  are  called  to  wage.  What  is  the  con- 
sequence ?  It  is  better  for  us  to  be  in  this  world 
than  to  be  moved  immediately  to  heaven.  Look  at 
this,  for  a  moment.  If  we  are  Christians,  we  are 
Kings.  If  we  are  kings,  we  are  sovereigns  over  the 
universe.  If  we  are  sovereigns,  all  things  are  ours. 
If  all  things  are  ours,  then  we  are  on  earth,  simply 
because  it  is  better  than  to  be  in  heaven.  If  we  were 
in  heaven,  we  would  be  without  sin.  Then  sanc- 
tification  is  not  simply  to  make  us  without  sin,  but 
to   lift    high   our    moral  nature  ;  and   the  old    man, 


Christ  and  Ordinances.  79 

rugged  with  the  storms  of  life,  may  be  higher  among 
the  blessed,  than  the  poor  child  snatched  away  into 
the  everlasting  Kingdom. 

We  see  then  how  Christ  may  be  sanctified,  even 
though  he  never  sinned.  He  may  learn  obedience  : 
he  may  j^///^  what  is  given  him  of  grace:  he  may 
build-in  of  celestial  stone  what  has  been  lent,  so  to 
speak,  of  moral  scaffolding;  and,  instead  of  being 
racked  by  horrible  temptation,  he  may  win,  at  last, 
as  we  all  do  when  we  come  to  die,  a  second  nature ; 
that  is,  when  we  are  glorified,  something  J>72eti?natieal 
instead  o^  something  psje/iiea/  (i  Cor.  xv  :  44)  ;  a  very 
body  that  responds  to  conscience  (i  Cor.  ix :  27)  ; 
for  which  we  are  growing  and  prepared  through  the 
long  fight  of  what  we  call  our  sanctification. 

We  are  not  responsible  for  what  Christ  means 
when  he  speaks  of  being  sanctified  (Jo.  x  :  36);  but 
this  is  what  we  dream  of  it.  He  had  to  suffer  (Heb. 
ix  :  22),  and  he  had  to  be  obedient  (Heb.  vii  :  26). 
His  suffering  was  his  temptation  (Heb.  xii  :  4),  and 
his  obedience  was  his  agony  of  resisting  faithfulness. 
These  were  necessary  in  themselves.  But,  with  all 
and  beyond  all,  there  was  this  other  influence, — 
that  they  sanctified  his  spirit,  and  made  the  captain 
of  our  salvation  perfect  through  suffering. 

CHAPTER  X. 
Christ  and  Ordinances. 

There  comes  in  finely,  then,  a  complete  solution 
of  many  of  the  riddles  of  the  Scripture. 
Christ  was  circumcised  ! 


8o  Reasons  for  the  Nezv  Doctrine. 

According  to  our  account  he  might  as  well  be,  as 
any  of  the  meanest  of  his  people.  He  was  born  of 
the  lineage  of  Adam  ;  and  if  he  had  to  be  cut  off  from 
his  stock,  and,  as  Paul  expresses  it,  "  separated  from 
sinners"  (Heb.  vii :  26),  his  parents  could  have  made 
no  mistake.  And  Providence  was  not  trifling  with 
the  history,  when  it  allowed  a  solemn  share  of  the 
ceremonial  rite  to  be  provided  for  the  Redeemer. 
Indeed  Paul  bases  everything  upon  it.  For,  making 
our  cleansing  flow  from  His  cleansing,  and  our  cir- 
cumcision, spiritually  considered,  rest  on  His, — he 
speaks  of  our  "  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh  in  the  circumcision  of  Christ"  (Col.  ii :   1 1). 

Now,  further,  he  was  baptized  !  And  the  true 
way  to  press  our  argument  is,  to  insist  upon  a  solu- 
tion. Why  was  Mary  purified  ?  Why  does  there 
Hnger  so  in  the  manuscripts  the  reading,  "  after  the 
days  of  THEIR  purification"  (Lu.  ii :  22).  Why  was 
our  Saviour  circumcised  ?  And  now,  much  more 
strongly  ;  for  this  was  his  own  act,  voluntarily  resorted 
to, — Why  did  he  go  to  John,  and,  against  the  distinct 
warning  of  his  forerunner,  insist  upon  receiving  bap- 
tism ?(Matt.  iii  :    15). 

Neander  '^  tells  us  it  was  official.  But  how  fool- 
ish to  talk  so  !  Why  should  Christ  mislead  us  by 
confusing  what  was  intended  for  the  people  ?  Why 
should  he  snatch  to  another  use  a  simple  and  easily 
darkened  ceremonial  ?  Neander  says.  It  was  his  or- 
dination. But  why  ?  We  might  give  it  a  thousand 
meanings.  Why  did  not  Christ  say  so  ?  Neander 
says.  It  could  not  mean  his  baptism.     There  is  the 

*  Gesch.  Apos,  Zeit.  p.  642,  note. 


Christ  and  Ordinances.  8i 

very  point.  Our  very  doctrine  shows  it  must  and 
could.  It  becomes  a  gloss  to  the  other  texts,  and 
shows,  what  all  baptism  shows,  that  Christ  needed 
cleansing ;  that  is,  that  he  needed  to  be  Christ ;  * 
that  is,  that  he  must  be  born  from  above  :  and  though 
he  was  never  cleansed  as  we  are  cleansed,  I  mean 
partially;  and  though  he  was  never  "born"  as  we 
are  "■  born,"  namely,  after  we  have  sinned  :  though 
he  was  "  born"  redeemed,  and  ''  begotten"  in  the 
womb,  and  never  saw  corruption  (Acts  ii :  31), — yet 
it  belonged  to  him  so  by  Adam,  that  he  might  be 
baptized  rightfully  as  we  are,  and  baptized  after  his 
cleansing,  just  as  we  are,  after  we  are  born  from 
above  (Acts  viii :  37). 

Again,  the  priests  !  What  did  they  wash  for  ?  (2 
Chr.  iv ;  6).  The  high  priest  !  Why  was  he  per- 
petually making  lustration  ?  (Ex.  xl :  31  ;  Lev.  viii : 
12,  30). 

And  now,  notice  one  thing  about  the  Bible.  Not 
only  is  Christ  perpetually  spoken  of  as  tempted,  and 
infirm,  and  compassed  about  with  weakness,  but, 
just  Hke  one  of  us  fighting  for  his  life,  the  whole  is 
said  to  depend  upon  the  High  Priest  keeping  clean. 
The  cases  are  everywhere.  Christ  must  be  obedient 
unto  death  ;  or  else  there  is  no  hope  of  any  body's 
salvation. 

''  If  thou  wilt  walk  in  my  ways,"  Jehovah  told 
him,  **  then  I  will  give  thee  companions  among  them 
that  walk  with  thee"  (Zech.  iii :  7).  "  He  was  heard, 
in  that  he  feared,"  the  apostle  says  (Heb.  v:  7). 
"  O  God  thou  knowest  as  to  f  my  foolishness  (that 

*  Anointed.  f  See  the  preposition. 


82  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

is,  thou  knovvest  that  I  have  none) ;  and  my  guilti- 
ness" (just  exactly  of  what  sort  it  is)  "  is  not  hid  from 
thee.  Deliver  me  out  of  the  mire,  and  let  me  not 
sink.  Draw  nigh  unto  my  soul,  and  redeem  it. 
The  humble  shall  see  and  be  glad ;  and  your 
hearts  shall  live  that  seek  God"  (Ps.  Ixix :  5,  14, 
18,  32). 

I  cannot  repeat  all  the  passages.  The  burden  of 
all  is,  that  Christ's  power  to  save  lay  in  his  saving 
himself.  '*  Who  through  the  Eternal  Spirit  offered 
himself  WITHOUT  SPOT  to  God"  (Heb.  ix :  I4). 
"  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself,  that  they  also 
may  be  sanctified  through  the  truth"  (Jo.  xvii :  19). 
"  Righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins"  (Is. 
xi :  5).  "  Thou  lovest  righteousness,  and  hatest 
wickedness.  THEREFORE  God  hath  blessed  thee 
forever"  (Ps.  xlv  :  7).  *'  The  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom 
is  a  right  sceptre"  (v.  6).  "  He  became  obedient 
unto  death  :  WHEREFORE  God  hath  highly  exalted 
him"  (Phil,  ii :  8,  9).  "  And,  being  made  perfect, 
he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them 
that  obey  him"  (Heb.  v  :  9). 

Excuse  the  length  of  our  list.  He  who  said,  "  I 
have  found  David  my  servant,"  had  only  to  add, 
"  With  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him"  (Ps.  Ixxxix : 
20),  to  show  how  stoutly,  and  yet  how  humanly ; 
how  triumphantly  in  the  end,  and  yet  how  agoni- 
zingly and  hazardously  through  all  the  way,  Jesus 
Christ,  our  incarnate  God,  fought  the  battle  as  a  poor 
lost  man  saved  by  grace,  but  bearing  all  the  way  the 
miserable  marks  of  an  undone  and  terrible  inher- 
itance. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Christ  and  Glorification. 

There  came   a  time  when  Christ  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sat  at  the  right  hand  of  God.    There  are 
many  mysterious  things  said  about  the  change.     He 
told  his  disciples,  *'  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter 
will  not  come  unto  you"  (Jo.  xvi :  7).     He  told  Mary, 
"Touch  me  not,"  that  is,  not  with  high  hopes  of  his 
highest  gifts  ;  for  he  could  not  bestow  them  yet.    "  I 
am  not  yet  ascended  unto  my  Father"  (Jo.  xx :   17). 
By  our  old  notions  this  was  rather  meaningless.    But 
if  we   take  the  idea  that  Christ  was  a   heritor  from 
Adam,  then  the  Divine  Man,  like  the  common  man, 
had  a  period  of  the  "  psychical  body"  of  which  Paul 
speaks.    That  is,  being  held  up  like  you  or  me  by  the 
sheer  power  of  grace  from  lapsing  into  sin,  he  had  a 
carnal  nature  which  reigned  all  through  his  earthly 
humiliation ;    which   was   subdued   by  "  the   things 
which   he  suffered"  (Heb.  v :    8)  ;  which  was  fought 
against    and    everywhere    conquered ;     and    which, 
though   held    in  submission   by  the  Spirit    without 
measure  given,  yet  evermore  threatened,  and  ever- 
more leaned  over  the  gulf  of  positive  and  possible  in 
iquity.    But  when  Christ  rose,  he  changed  his  nature 
The  ''body  psychical"  gave  place  to  one  "  pneumati 
cal."     When  Paul  says,  "  There  is  a  psychical  body 
and    there  is  a  pneumatical  body"  (i   Cor.  xv:  44), 
we  do  not  understand  an  ethereal  body  at  judgment 
That   may  be  as  it  may  be.     But  we  understand,  a 


84  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

holy  body  ;  not  one,  as  in  the  case  of  Christ,  HELD 
IN  HOLINESS  by  the  supreme  efficiency  of  the  Spirit, 
but  one  naturally  holy  ;  no  longer  drilled  and  trained 
and  striven  with  by  a  Visitor  from  abroad,  but  the 
home  of  that  Visitor;  incorporated  with  Him  ;  now 
no  longer  His  arena  for  a  fight,  but  His  throne 
to  everlasting ;  the  place  of  His  abiding  seat  ; 
glorious  now  in  its  strength,  and  quiet  as  a  second 
nature. 

Christ's  glorification,  therefore,  was  like  man's 
glorification,  with  essential  differences.  Man's  glori- 
fication was  a  release  from  sin.  Christ  never  sinned. 
Man's  glorification  will  take  place  hereafter  (Col.  iii  : 
4).  Christ's  glorification  has  already  taken  place. 
Man's  glorification  is  lower.  Christ's  glorification  is 
ineffable,  as  one  with  God.  But,  with  these  differ- 
ences, there  are  similarities,  which,  with  our  view, 
become  unspeakably  more  complete.  Man's  glorifi- 
cation is  a  rising  to  an  untempted,  unweakened  con- 
dition of  obedience.  So  is  Christ's.  His  battle  is 
over. 

Now  with  this  pneumatical  life,  where  the  Spirit 
reigns  instead  of  battles,  there  are,  as  it  might  natu- 
rally be  anticipated,  changes  of  authority.  Even  the 
saint  shall  have  his  kingdom  over  the  "  five  cities" 
(Lu.  xix:  19).  And  though  we  do  not  understand 
entirely  why  "  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet,  because 
that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified"  (Jo.  viii :  39),  we  do 
understand,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  was  only 
comparatively  ;  as  when  Christ  said,  "They  had  not 
had  sin"  (Jo.  xv:  22);  or  when  Paul  says,  "Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize"  (i  Cor.  i:   17);  and  we  do 


Christ  and  Glorification.  85 

understand,  in  the  second  place,  that  it  would  not 
be  in  the  least  unnatural  that  Christ,  with  higher 
glory,  should  have  higher  reign  ;  that  Christ,  escaped 
from  Adam,  should  climb  upon  the  throne  ;  that 
Christ,  with  his  case  decided,  should  have  its  prom- 
ises fulfilled  ;  and  that  Christ,  having  actually  paid 
the  ransom,  should  have  now  higher  power  than 
those  anticipative  good  things  which  a  trust  that  he 
would  conquer  wrung  out,  in  advance,  from  the  law 
of  the  Almighty. 

So  we  explain  everything.  And  when  Jesus,  re- 
membering the  touch  of  the  diseased  woman  (Mar. 
V  :  30),  says  to  Mary,  "  Touch  me  not,"  for  the  high- 
est gifts,  that  I  have  often  talked  with  thee  about, 
cannot  be  responsive  to  thy  touch  till  I  am  ascended 
to  the  Father,  it  throws  a  beautiful  light  on  all  our 
theory  ;  which  is,  that  he  was  of  our  fallen  Adam  ; 
that  he  did  not  cease  to  be  so  till  he  rose  to  heaven  ; 
that  he  was  staid  from  sin,  or  otherwise  he  never 
could  have  risen  to  redemption  ;  but  that  he  was 
not  staid  from  moral  weakness  ;  that  is,  that  he  was 
not  staid  from  a  fleshliness  (Heb.  v  :  2)  that  could  be 
wrung  by  moral  temptation;  that  he  was  accursed, 
therefore,  all  through  his  life  ;  and  that  it  was  only 
when  he  rose  to  paradise,  that  ih^  psnchiko7i  put  on 
the  pnemnatikon^  and  that  an  easy  holiness  reigned 
and  became  natural  in  a  carnal  heritor. 


CHAPTER    XII 
Christ  and  God. 

It  becomes  now  intensely  interesting  to  ask,  how 
God  could  become  one  with  such  a  man. 

In  the  first  place,  God  never  could  become  one 
with  man  at  all.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  most 
medieval  orthodoxy. 

But  then  I  must  explain  exactly  what  I  mean  by 
such  an  assertion  ;  for,  thus  nakedly  standing,  it  will 
surprise  many  a  reader,  and  awake  an  impetuous, 
No!  against  such  an  assault  upon  our  creed. 

But  my  meaning  is  simple.  I  mean  that  in  the 
very  simplest,  and  therefore  the  most  important 
sense,  God  is  not  one  with  man,  and  could  not  be 
possibly. 

The  ^'  Confession"  says  that  Christ  is  "  very  man." 
Now  if  Christ  is  ''  very  man,"  he  has  "a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  (reasoning)  soul"  :  and  if  he  is  a 
true  man  in  these  respects,  he  is  finite;  and,  more- 
over, he  is  a  creature,  and  the  creature  must  be  dis- 
tinct from  the  Creator.  I  shall  cloud  the  thing  if  I 
pause.  No  mortal  ever  dreamed  that  the  child  of 
Mary  was  God  in  the  most  natural  and  simple 
sense. 

But  then  he  is  God  in  certain  senses,  and  that  is 
why  I  think  Paul  chose  isa  instead  of  tson  in  his 
famous  sentence  (Phil,  ii :  6).  He  is  God  (Rom.  ix  : 
5),  and  ought  to  be  worshipped  (Heb.  i :  6) ;  and 
many  a  man  will  shrink  from  our  view  of  his  hu- 


Christ  and  God.  8/ 

manity,  because   it  sinks    him  lower,   and  makes  it 
harder  to  think  of  him  as  in  truth  the  Son  of  God. 

But  let  us  look  at  all  this,  and  let  us  make  a  list 
now  of  the  isa  (Phil,  ii :  6),  and  show  in  what  particu- 
lars Christ  is  God  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

1.  And  in  the  first  place,  to  use  a  thought  that 
will  allow  for  every  mystery,  he  is  God  just  as  far  as 
the  Omnipotent  Jehovah  could  dQ\iy  an  elected  and 
anointed  intelligence.  Making  the  universe,  it  would 
be  strange  if  he  could  not  elect  a  creature,  and  build 
everything  around  him.  One  might  suspect  he 
would  ;  for,  being  invisible,  why  should  he  not  select 
a  being,  and  become  incarnate  in  him  for  his  crea- 
tures? Because,  *' no  being  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time  ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him."  This  shall  be 
our  first  answer  then.  Christ  is  God  in  every  sense 
in  which  God  by  the  use  of  his  Omnipotence  could 
unite  himself  with  a  creature. 

2.  And,  therefore,  secondly,  he  is  God  in  the 
Spirit. 

This  is  the  celestial  way  of  explaining  his  God- 
head. ''  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  unto  her, 
The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power 
of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee;  therefore  also 
that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  God"  (Lu.  i:  35).  This  makes 
Christ  his  great  appellative — the  Anointed  One.  And 
this  Paul  notices,  ''  Ordained  "^  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
in  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness"  (Romans 
i  :  3).    Christ  is  not  particular  to  call  Him  Spirit,  but 

*  Compare  (E.  V.)  Acts  xvii :    31. 


88  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

says,  *'  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the 
works"  (Jo.  xiv:  lo).  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath 
seen  the  Father"  (v.  9).  And  the  prophets  talk 
boldly  of  "  God."  They  call  him  Emmanuel ;  and 
they  address  him  (Ps.  ex:  i).  "Jehovah  said  unto 
my  Lord,  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand,  until  I  make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool."  In  substantial  ways, 
therefore,  the  Spirit  is  the  incarnated  Deity. 

3.  But  in  authoritative  ways !  There  will  be 
another  aspect. 

I  will  state  at  once  three  particulars  (isa)  in  which 
Christ  is  God ;  first,  substantially,  in  that  he  is  the  in- 
carnated Spirit  ;  second,  authoritatively,  in  that  '*  all 
power  is  given  unto  [him]  in  heaven  and  in  earth" 
(Matt,  xxviii :  18) ;  and  \\i\x6.,  fore nsic ally ,  in  that  he 
stands  for  God.  By  eternal  covenant  his  name  is  the 
Father's  name  ;  and  by  federal  law,  which  has  passed 
the  inspection  of  eternity,  his  righteousness  is  God's 
righteousness,  and  they  are  so  federally  and  substan- 
tially the  same,  that  what  Christ  suffered  in  the  fight 
is  as  though  God  endured  it,  under  the  pressure  of 
intolerable  iniquities. 

Authority,  therefore,  to  recur  that  way,  is  asserted 
everywhere.  '*  Christ  is  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church"  (Eph.  i :  22).  He  is  able  to  say,  "  All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  We  are 
to  know  what  is  the  exceeding  greatness  of  God's 
power,  "  which  he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he  set  him 
far  above  all  principality  and  power  and  might  and 
dominion  and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in 
this  world,  but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come"  (Eph.  i : 
20,  2\y     Authority  \\\<::xq{oxq,\s  to   be  one  feature: 


Christ  and  God,  89 

4.  And  now  next  comes  the  yi^rr;/^/^  claim. 

He  is  '*  Jehovah  our  Righteousness"  (Jer.  xxiii :  6). 

And  we  cannot  exaggerate  this.  It  is  complete. 
**  Through  the  Eternal  Spirit  he  offered  himself  with- 
out spot  to  God"  (Heb.  ix  :  14).  He  died  as  though 
God  died.  He  obeyed  as  though  God  obeyed.  And, 
therefore,  no  oracle  shrinks.  They  say  boldly,  "  Feed 
the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood"  (Acts  xx  :  28). 

(i)  As  a  mystery^  therefore,  that  is  beyond  what 
any  body  can  fathom  :  (2)  as  omnipotency,  therefore, 
making  the  man  a  God  as  far  as  the  supreme  Jeho- 
vah could  make  any  of  his  creatures  :  (3)  as  incarna- 
tion, the  holy  substance  being  the  Spirit  born  with- 
in :  (4)  as  kingship  di\Y3.YdQd  by  authority:  and  (5) 
as  headship  by  an  eternal  covenant, — the  Deity  is  to 
be  adored  in  Christ,  and  these  are  the  points  level 
to  the  worship  of  his  people. 

But  then  they  do  not  forbid  his  having  been  lost. 

We  are  always  at  a  disadvantage  as  to  our  mode 
of  speech. 

How  much  more  beautiful  the  expression,  "  Born 
from  among  the  dead"  (Col.  i:   18). 

Jesus  Christ  was  never  really  lost. 

But  that  he  was  doomed  by  lineage,  does  not  In 
the  least  interfere  with  all  these  points  of  his  divinity. 

Once  cumber  him  with  guilt,  and  it  may  be  fed- 
eral guilt  as  well  as  that  under  the  new  dispensation. 
He  was  infirm  (Heb.  v:  2).  The  deeper  and  the 
deadlier,  all  the  grander  if  he  bore  the  triumph.  He 
was  tempted.  That  we  have  always  known.  If  it 
shattered  him,  and  snatched  at  his  very  life,  all  the 
16 


90  Reasons  for  the  New  Doctrine. 

more  was  he  a  man,  and  all  the  more,  God,  if  he  won 
the  victory. 

Take  the  peculiarities  apart,  (i)  A  mystery  !  It 
scarcely  colors  the  mystery.  (2)  Omnipotence  !  If 
it  could  make  Gabriel  God,  it  could  scarce  be  grander 
if  it  were  a  child  of  Adam.  (3)  The  Spirit !  It  would 
befit  his  work.  (4)  Authority  !  A  lost  nature  could 
be  lifted  to  it  as  well  as  another.  (5)  Forensically  he 
had  guilt  at  any  rate  ;  and  therefore  there  is  nothing 
in  these  relations  to  God,  that  this  brand  plucked 
from  the  burning  could  not  be  fitted  for  as  well  as 
an  un-Adamic  Redeemer. 


III. 

CONCLUSION. 


But  it  will  be  angrily  uttered,  Who  dare  thus 
change  everything  ?  The  flush  of  anxiety  will  stand, 
as  though  at  the  very  tomb  of  Christ,  and  say,  '  They 
will  take  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they 
will  lay  him!  Some  schemings  touch  the  outskirts 
of  religion  ;  but  this  ruins  all  of  it.  In  the  first  place, 
it  touches  the  very  person  of  Christ ;  in  the  second 
place,  it  awakes  the  scandal  of  uncertainty;  and  in 
the  third  place  it  breeds  this  retort.  How  can  you 
who  are  but  a  single  reader  of  the  word  of  God,  and 
not  very  profound  or  discreet  at  that,  set  yourself  in 
array  against  the  tried  doctrine  of  all  mankind?' 

There  is  something  intimidating  in  this.  And 
after  the  ripple  of  resentment,  there  follows  a  dead 
tide  which  is  much  more  formidable  still.  Where  is 
this  change  to  end?  And  how  can  we  anchor  any- 
where, if  the  faith  ubique  et  ab  omnibus  is  thus  to  be 
thrust  aside  by  the  speculations  of  a  single  mind? 

Let  us  exhaust  this  sort  of  speech. 

It  will  be  said  further, — Christ  is  simple.  This 
was  upheld,  and  was  made  a  bright  symptom  of  his 
excellence  in  the  old  conception  of  his  person,  (i) 
He   was  simple    in  his  being, — Incarnate  God,  and 


92  Was  CJirist  in  Adam  ? 

perfect  unincumbered  man.  To  make  him  of  the 
earth  earthy,  and  to  debase  him  as  an  heir  of  ruin,  is 
travelHng  a  great  way  round,  and  reaching,  in  antici- 
pative  ways,  the  great  trophies  of  his  victories.  (2) 
He  was  simple  in  his  work.  That  is*  the  questions 
of  life  are  m.uch  more  easily  met  than  by  this  new 
conception  of  redemption.  "  He  that  spared  not  his 
own  Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up  for  us  all,"  was  do- 
ing that  which  is  much  more  easily  understood  if 
the  child  of  Mary  was  aloof  from  Adam,  than  if  we 
had  to  wade  through  all  this  retroactive  thought,  and 
reach  our  life  through  life  first  won  back  for  our 
Emmanuel.  (3)  Again,  he  was  simple  in  character. 
He  knew  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his 
mouth.  It  confuses  everything,  to  imagine  him 
attaint.  It  strains  everything,  to  conceive  of  this 
attainder  as  lifted  from  him  by  his  death.  And 
though  he  never  sinned  under  the  curse,  yet  that  he 
was  tempted  to  it  by  heredity  native  in  the  flesh, 
bewilders  all  our  faith,  and  spoils  all  our  reverence 
for  this  great  Omnipotent. 

Now,  let  us  answer  everything.  In  the  first  place, 
the  scandal !  In  olden  time  the  unbroken  faith  was, 
that  it  was  right  to  persecute.  The  Pagan  perse- 
cuted the  Christian.  The  Christian  persecuted  the 
Pagan.  It  was  a  settled  doctrine.  When  Paul  said, 
"  Deliver  such  an  one  to  Satan  for  the  destruction 
of  the  flesh"  (i  Cor.  v:  5),  the  world  leaped  there  at 
once.  Hittites  and  Jebusites,  under  the  old  theocra- 
tic rule,  personated  ab  ictu  recusant  believers  ;  and 
the  world's  cup  of  faith  filled  itself  up  at  once,  and 
century  after  century  did  nothing  to  correct  the  evil. 


Conclusion.  93 

Did  that  make  it  right  ? 

Again,  the  power  of  Kings !  Paul  is  again  the 
teacher  (Rom.  xiii  :  4;  i  Pet.  ii  :  17);  and  Christ 
(Matt,  xxiii  :  2).  The  world,  we  are  to  understand, 
when  it  sets  a  certain  sense  upon  the  sayings  of 
Christ,  seals  it:  that  seems  the  argument;  and 
2ibique  et  ab  ovinibus  are  to  be  infallible,  like  the  work 
of  the  Spirit. 

Now,  I  believe  in  infallibility  :  and  here  lies  what 
is  plausible  in  the  intended  argument.  When  Christ 
says,  '*  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church:"  or  when 
he  says,  "  I  am  with  you  always  ;"  or  when  YdiwX  prob- 
ably says,  that  "  the  church"  is  "  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth"  (i  Tim.  iii :  15), — they  do  un- 
doubtedly mean,  that  saving  truth  shall  never  fade 
from  the  earth.  But  what  is  saving  truth  ?  But  yes- 
terday all  the  Church  believed  in  the  "  mystical  pre- 
sence." To-day,  the  most  do.  Then  it  is  true  ? 
Can  man  or  God  warrant  any  such  affirmation  at  our 
hands? 

But  if  it  be  not  true,  who  shall  say  so  ?  If  the 
pent  flood  bore  its  way  out  through  the  burrow  of  a 
worm,  is  it  audacious  in  the  worm?  Think  of  these 
things.  The  lion  is  crowded  in  a  net.  Then  it  is 
wicked  in  the  mouse  to  gnaw  it,  and  to  cut  him 
out? 

Is  not  the  true  doctrine  this?  that  if  the  church 
lights  her  fires,  the  weakest  may  put  them  out?  If 
the  Jacobites  rule,  may  not  the  peasant  teach  them 
better  things?  And  if  iibique  the  wafer  pronounces 
itself  God,  may  not  the  poor,  loneliest  monk  upset 
the  understanding  of  the  Word,  and   all   the   more 


94  IVas  CJirist  in  Adam? 

proclaim  that  '*  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail 
against  us?" 

And  now  in  regard  to  simplicity  I  (i)  Where  is 
the  simplicity  in  Christ,  if,  like  Gabriel,  or  like  Luci- 
fer, he  comes  from  a  foreign  shore  ? 

Deism  is  more  simple  than  Christianity ;  that  is, 
in  form  it  seems  to  be  :  but  does  it  explain  more  sim- 
ply the  great  facts  of  our  salvation  ?  Christ  is  more 
simple,  if  created  at  a  blow;  but  if  a  prophet  the 
Lord  our  God  has  raised  up  to  us  of  his  brethren  like 
unto  us,  may  not  the  picture  that  has  the  fewer 
points  be,  like  Deism,  the  least  capacitated  to  ex- 
plain the  difficulties? 

(2)  So  of  ransom.  **  The  lamb  without  blemish 
and  without  spot"  might  seem,  if  in  the  sense  that 
has  been  prescriptive,  to  be  more  simple  to  explain 
the  sacrifice  ;  but  if  the  sacrifice  be  suffering,  and  if 
the  suffering  be  obedience,  and  if  there  be  statements 
of  the  very  fiercest  temptation,  and  if,  along  with 
these  temptations,  there  be  statements  of  the  very 
most  dreadful  risk,  and,  along  with  that,  of  a  being 
rendered  perfect  by  suffering,  tell  me, — which  is  sim- 
plest, that  which  gathers  all  these  six  in  one,  or  that 
which  leaves  them  at  loose  ends  to  be  explained  as 
mysteries  ? 

Let  me  dwell  upon  this. 

Our  Saviour  had  a  battle  :  what  was  it?  It  was 
a  mystery.  He  was  tempted.  How?  Being  "  holy, 
harmless,  separate  from  sinners,  and  made  higher 
than  the  heavens,"  how  did  temptation  reach  him  ? 
I  mean  under  the  old  system  ?  You  have  nothing  to 
say  but  that  it  was  a  mystery.     Again,  he  suffered 


Conclusion.  95 

But  so  did  the  thief.  Tell  me  what  his  sufferings 
consisted  in.  You  venture  a  little  way  here,  and 
say,  It  was  anger.  But  what  sort  of  anger?  Did 
not  his  Father  love  him  ?  Did  Christ  lose  his  mind 
by  becoming  a  glorious  Redeemer?  You  say,  His 
Father  hid  himself.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it,  but  how? 
Could  Christ  put  on  a  guise  of  terror ;  or  could  there 
be  a  hallucination  of  wrath,  under  which  he  could 
assume  a  torture  ?  And  then  in  respect  to  obedience 
(Heb.  v:  8);  why  so  difficult?  And  in  respect  to 
being  *'  made  perfect,"  How  possibly  can  all  these 
things  be  wrought  in  one?  And  why  should  that  be 
thought  simple  that  leaves  all  these  useless  for  the 
teaching  of  the  people? 

But  let  me  drop  one  magic  word — Adam.  Give 
me  one  text  of  Peter,  "  Made  a  dead  man  by  the 
flesh"  (i  Pet.  iii:  18).  Let  me  have  one  phrase  out 
of  the  Vulgate,  **  Primogenitns  e  mortuis' ;  *  and 
then  one  line  from  the  Apostle,  Being  "  quickened 
together  with  him"  (Col.  ii  :  13), — and  all  these  mys- 
teries approach,  and  take  off  their  masks  by  mutual 
assistance.  These  were  the  riddles  of  our  faith. 
Now  they  can  be  built  upon.  Temptation  !  It  was 
incident  to  his  lineage.  Suffering  !  It  was  the  fruit 
of  his  temptation.  Obedience!  It  was  a  most  fear- 
ful battle.  And  perfecting  himself !  He  did  it  like 
you  or  me.  Only  he  was  the  God  Incarnate.  He 
had  the  Spirit  without  *' measure"  (Jo.  iii:  34);  or, 
as  one  codex  has  it,  without  "  part"  :  that  is  without 
just  a  part  as  we  have  it,  leaving  the  rest  to  sin  ;  but 
nevertheless,  not  so  without  measure  that  his  Deity 

*"  The  first-born  from  the  dead." 


96  Was  CJirist  in  Adam  ? 

did  not  leave  him,  I  mean  the  man  Christ ;  did  not 
stint  him  of  his  power  as  in  the  garden  of  Geth- 
semane ;  and  did  not  leave  him  on  the  cross,  to 
shrink  with  a  scream  of  agony  from  the  last  passion 
of  his  life,  viz.,  a  fear  of  wreck,  just  as  he  was  anchor- 
ing within  the  veil. 

(3)  Third,  character;  it  brings  me  nearer  to  my 
Redeemer.  Before,  he  was  an  alien,  a  something 
outside  of  me.  Now,  he  is  bone  of  my  bones,  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh. 

And  this  pleases  me  in  three  particulars  :  first,  as 
an  example.  Before  he  was  a  mystery.  I  could  not 
see  how  he  was  an  example  at  all.  He  took  things 
easily;  i.  e.,  he  had  a  good  nature  ;  and  though  he 
was  "■  compassed  about  with  infirmity,"  I  could  not 
see  how.  There  was  a  gravel  stone  in  the  socket  of 
the  cross.  Now  the  cross  sits  straight  in  its  morticed 
hold.  I  understand  it  perfectly :  he  was  a  poor  tor- 
tured heritor.  He  was  "■  tempted,"  blessed  be  God  ! 
as  well  as  '*  slain  by  the  sword"  ;  and  now  I  understand 
that  the  latter  was  heaven  in  contrast  with  the  former. 
And  when  the  Apostle  tells  me  to  fight  also  my  bat- 
tle, "  looking  unto  Jesus  the  author  and  finisher  of 
our  faith,"  I  see  why  "  our'  was  not  put  in  the  origi- 
nal ;  and  why  it  should  not  appear  at  all.  I  see  that 
it  was  Christ's  faith  of  which  Christ  was  the  finisher ; 
and  that,  under  the  hard  torments  under  which  he 
began  and  rendered  it  complete  (Ps.  xxii :  8,  19),  he 
becomes  a  pattern  for  me,  to  fight  and  run  my  race 
of  a  new  obedience. 

Again,  he  can  pity  me.  It  seems  Christ  craved 
grace  as  well  as  I.     He  will  not  be  arrogant  over  me. 


Conclusion.  97 

He  was  a  poor  "  worm  ;"  for  Isaiah  is  bold  enough  to 
say,  "  An  abomination  is  he  that  chooseth  you"  (Is. 
xli  :  24).     And  if  any  man  says  to  me,  **  Who  maketh 
thee  to  differ?  and  what  hast  thou  that  thou  hast  not 
received  ?"  i   Cor.  iv  :    7),   Christ  will   not  renounce 
my  brotherhood,  even  there.     As  God,  he  is  all  my 
righteousness  ;  as  man,  he   is  a  child    of  the  curse, 
lifted  out  of  it  by  grace,  and  made  to  possess  a  splendid 
difference,  by  being  one  person  with  the  Most  High. 
Once  more  ;  he  gets  strong  hold  of  me  because 
he  is  close  by  me,  one  of  ourselves.     Had  he  been 
an  angel,  his  fingers  would  have  been  ice.     Had  he 
been    from    Saturn    or    from    Uranus,    some   gallant 
fighter  who  had    observed    the  law — had    he   been 
from  the  womb  of  Mary  by  some  far  off  and   alien 
power,  I   must  have  submitted,  and  bent  that  way 
the  yearnings  of  my  confidence  :  but   as  he  is  from 
me,  that   is  from  the  sad  stock  to  which  I  and  my 
house  belong,  I  grasp  him  better.     It  may  not  be  so 
with  others.    I  look  at  him  as  1  look  at  Adam.    And 
as  I  am  quieted  under  the  imputations  of  guilt,  when 
I  see  it  like   the  acorn  from  the  oak  dropping  from 
the  very  fountains  of  my  blood,  so  I  can  take  hold 
more     of  Christ,   when    I    sweep    him    under    the 
thought, — "  God  has  made  of  one   blood  all  nations 
for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth"  (Acts  xvii : 
26)  ;  and,  when  I  look  upon  the  millions  of  my  kin, 
can  look  on  One,  crowned  and  blessed  ;  and,  gazing 
on  Adam,  whose  guilt   has  settled   on  the  rest,  can 
gaze  also  on  Christ,  and  see  the   finger  of  the  King 
pointing  to  him  in  that  glorious  decree,  *'  The  Lord 
hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 
5 


III. 


IS    GOD    A   TRINITYt 


PREFACE. 


The  author  of  this  book  has  no  other  occupation 
for  the  remainder  of  his  Hfe  one-tenth  part  as  inter- 
esting to  him,  as  the  undoing,  as  far  as  his  feeble 
efforts  can,  prevalent  superstitions  of  the  church  in 
respect  to  the  justification  of  believers. 

He  finds  piety  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
but  desperately  marred  by  superstitious  additions. 
So  of  the  Baptist  Church  ;  so  of  the  Methodist ;  so 
of  the  ritualistic  Episcopalians  :  a  great  many  good 
works,  and  a  great  many  pious  experiences,  increas- 
incf  in  excellence  and  amount  as  the  church  becomes 
not  Papist  but  Protestant,  and  not  Protestant  alone 
but  down  nearer  the  rock-bed  of  absolute  Christianity. 

But  this  he  notices :  Churches  flourish  numeri- 
cally by  force  of  their  superstitions.  I  offer  shares 
on  Wall  Street.  I  get  the  most  bids  if  there  be  an 
element  of  gambling.  If  what  I  have  to  propose  in- 
volves hard  work,  men  bid  slowly.  If  it  have  a  specu- 
lative cast,  men  crowd  upon  me  and  buy.  And  so 
of  the  different  denominations.  There  are  pious 
people  in  every  one  of  them.  There  are  the  most 
pious  people  in  those  that  have  most  of  Christ.  But 
how  obvious  is  it  that  the  children  of  this  world  are 
17 


4  Is  God  a  Trinity? 

wiser  than  the  children  of  light  ;  and,  therefore,  that 
the  way-making  property  of  a  church,  or  that  by 
which  it  gathers  numbers,  is  not  the  pious  points  in 
it,  but  the  superstitions  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  pious 
points  givQ  it  character  and  favor  with  heaven,  but  its 
superstitions  cut  its  way,  and  load  on  it  its  numerical 
strength,  though  they  bring  it  at  last  to  its  ghostly 
dissolution. 

Let  me  illustrate  this.  The  Baptists  are  a  pious 
sect,  but  who  does  not  see  that  they  make  their  way 
by  immersion  ?  The  Jansenists  were  an  excellent  peo- 
ple :  and  who  that  has  seen  much  of  ritualism  is  nar- 
row enough  to  deny,  that  there  are  singular  instances 
of  faith  under  the  most  direful  idolatry  ?  And,  yet, 
it  is  the  idolatry  that  fights  the  battle.  It  is  the 
labor-saving  principle.  Or  rather,  it  is  that  which 
does  without  purity  of  life.  And,  therefore,  though 
good  men  get  into  such  systems,  they  are  flocked  into 
by  the  bad  ;  and  the  ritualism  is  the  speculative  cast 
that  makes  the  sect  attractive  as  in  the  Wall  Street 
overtures. 

Now  take  our  Presbyterian  communion.  I  have 
thought  it  the  very  soberest.  It  seems  down  at  the 
hard-pan  of  actual  revelation.  What  could  be  more 
plain  ?  And,  yet,  watch  its  operations.  Regard  its 
scenes  of  present  revival.  What  does  it  harp  upon 
most?  Precisely  those  things  that  are  capable  of 
superstition. 

We  have  nothing  to  make  a  superstition  of,  ritu 
alistically  ;  nor  in  our  forms;  nor  in  our  measures 
We  have  no  idols  that  can  be  set  up,  and  looked  at , 
unless  the  eucharist  and  the  sacramental  baptism  still 


Preface.  5 

have  cleaving-  to  them,  specially  in  our  symbols  (Conf. 
C.  28,  §  6 ;  see  also  Sh.  Cat.  Qu.  92),  a  little  of  the 
rust  of  the  middle  age.  We  are  shut  up,  like  the 
culprit  in  a  prison,  with  nothing  to  commit  suicide 
with,  except  the  bare  walls,  or  the  strips  we  can  tear 
from  our  covering.  And  yet  the  Wall  Street  appe- 
tite is  there.  How  do  we  gratify  it?  By  seizing  that 
which  can  be  best  exsiccated  and  made  insignificant. 
Our  Saviour  says,  "  Repent."  It  is  hard  to  get  fa- 
cility out  of  that.  Isaiah  says,  "  Wash  you :  make 
you  clean"  (Is.  i :  16).  Our  Lord  says,  "  If  thou  wilt 
enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments"  (Matt,  xix: 
17).  Ezekiel  says,  "  Make  you  a  new  heart"  (Ez. 
xviii :  31).  The  apostle  speaks  of  repentance  and 
conversion  for  the  remission  of  sin  (Acts  iii :  19  ;  Mar. 
i :  4).  These  are  not  easy  instruments  of  supersti- 
tion. And,  therefore,  faith,  which  is  unspeakably 
more  shadowy,  attracts  the  eager  instinct  of  our 
humanity  as  that  through  which  can  be  made  more 
facile  the  offerings  of  salvation. 

Now,  to  a  discerning  eye,  faith  and  repentance 
are  co-essential :  obedience  and  believing  are  the 
same  in  7t2ice:  when  our  King  says,  Do  well  and  be 
accepted  (Gen.  iv :  7),  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  in 
eye  the  covenant  of  works,  but  repenting  and  con- 
verting. If  any  man  says,  We  cannot  obey  perfectly, 
such  a  creed  echoes,  Nor  believe  perfectly.  The 
true  mind  looks  from  Christ  to  James ;  and  where 
Christ  says,  Do  my  sayings,  and  thou  hast  thy  house 
upon  a  rock  (Matt,  vii :  24),  it  asks  what  those  sayings 
are,  and,  finding  them  to  teach  truth  (v  :  33-37),  and 
love  (v  :  44),  and  meekness  (v:  5),  and  long  suffering 


6  Is  God  a  Trinity? 

(v :  39),  and  honesty  (vii :  12),  and  the  commonest 
duties  among  men  (vii :  i),  it  understands  what  the 
old  nation  ought  to  have  understood  when  it  was 
commanded,  ''  Do  this  and  thou  shalt  Hve"  (Lev. 
xviii :  5;  Lu.  x:  28);  and  it  reconciles  Paul  with 
James  when  Paul  says,  A  man  is  justified  by  faith, 
and  James,  scouting  an  eviscerated  faith,  says,  "  Ye 
see,  then,  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and 
not  by  faith  only"  (Jas.  ii :  24). 

Now,  believing  that  hypocrites  abound ;  and  be- 
lieving that  there  are  profligates  in  the  church  ;  and 
believing  that  they  come  there  under  the  hands  of 
ministers  ;  and  hearing  these  ministers  preach  ;  and 
beheving  that  they  misapprehend  the  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation,— we  would  like  to  spend  our  life  in  earnest 
remonstrance.  What  the  water  is  to  one  ;  and  what 
the  priest  is  to  another ;  and  what  systematical  con- 
ceits of  order  may  be  to  the  salvation  of  a  third  ; 
that,  I  beheve,  mere  trust,  without  a  particle  of  moral 
trait,  is  to  the  everlasting  salvation  of  many  of  our 
people. 

Now,  unfortunately  to  the  outward  eye,  in  this 
zeal  for  purity  of  life,  this  would-be  reformation  of 
my  brethren,  finds  itself  confronted  with  another 
faith,  which,  it  is  to  be  feared,  will  cast,  oceans  of 
distance  from  me,  the  purest  of  the  people. 

Why  write  about  it  ? 

This  is  the  very  point  that  is  pressed  by  almost 
every  friend. 

There  are  men  who  deeply  sympathize  with  these 
views  of  justification  ;  men  who  are  waked  to  thought ; 
men  who  predict  a  large  influence,  even  for  humble 


Preface.  7 

means,  to  preaching  in  a  consistent  way  justification 
by  works  (Jas.  ii :  21).  There  might  be  a  growing 
horror  kindled,  and  a  broken-hearted  surprise,  that 
we,  who  have  been  most  bitter  against  the  Pope,  and 
most  bewildered  by  the  possibilities  of  a  reviving 
ritualism,  should  find  the  monster  in  ourselves  ;  and 
that  we  have  made  the  very  simplicities  of  faith  a 
soul-destroying  and  church-corrupting  instrument  of 
superstition. 

But  publish  this  book,  it  will  be  said,  and  one  man 
at  least  may  leave  the  enterprise. 

Nay,  all  that  he  has  ever  writ,  and  all  that  he  may 
hope  to  write,  will  be  a  voice  against  it. 

The  advocate  of  a  bare  belief,  who  has  cut  off 
from  it  all  elements  of  holiness,  will  take  courage  in 
the  very  fact,  that  the  impulse  to  oppose  him  is  so 
soon  caught  by  other  gusts,  and  is  so  soon  showing 
its  source  by  quarreling  with  other  doctrines  of  evan- 
gelical Christianity. 

What  am  I  to  do  therefore  ?  It  would  be  such  a 
pleasure  to  remain  in  shelter !  Why  not  take  one 
thing  at  a  time?  If  Justification  be  the  more  im- 
portant point,  why  not  prefer  that,  and  have  some- 
thing posthumous  for  the  other  } 

This  has  been  said  to  me. 

But,  unfortunately,  we  are  all  confessors.  Each 
lives  not  a  day  but  he  avows  the  confession  of  his 
faith.  There  are  honesties  in  this  matter.  And,  though 
I  might  remain  concealed,  and  not  renew  my  avowals 
but  upon  some  change  of  place  ;  yet  what  for  a  de- 
fence is  that?  Do  I  not  virtually  avow,  every  day 
and  hour,  my  original  confession? 


8  Is  God  a   Trinity  ? 

I  will  not  meet  my  brethren,  therefore,  with  any- 
thing concealed. 

But,  now  ;  a  little  on  the  other  side. 

When  I  finished  my  *'  Metaphysics,"  and  found 
that  I  differed  from  the  reigning  school  ;  and  when, 
under  the  light  of  an  ethical  belief,  I  criticised  ten 
points  in  our  prevalent  dogmatic  forms  ;  *  and  when, 
at  a  later  date,  I  conceived  the  two  monographs  that 
will  perhaps  be  bound  up  with  this, — I  began  to  take 
the  alarm.  My  "  Metaphysics"  might  be  a  matter 
of  free  lance.  My  "  Fetich"  had  been  confessed  as 
true  by  a  majority  of  Calvinistic  chairs.f  These 
monographs  could  not  be  mortally  astray.  But  where 
was  this  thing  to  end  ?  I  might,  thus  far,  not  be 
amenable  to  my  church  ;  but  where  further  ?  I  began 
to  be  anxious  about  the  working  of  my  mind.  And, 
as  a  man  must  follow  it  wherever  it  will  lead,  I  began 
to  look  eagerly  ahead,  and  ask,  where  an  erring  intel- 
lect would  carry  me  next,  against  the  opinions  of 
bodies  of  my  brethren. 

1  did  the  only  thing  practicable.  I  plunged  into 
my  whole  theology.  Having  returned  from  a  length- 
ened route,  made  necessary  by  philosophical  publi- 
cation, I  did  what  the  old  man  does  who  taps  the 
wheels  after  they  come  from  a  trip.  I  wished  to  see 
if  I  was  sound.  And,  therefore,  with  as  much  prayer 
as  I  could  offer,  and  with  abundant  purpose  to  be  true, 
I  studied  the  whole  system  of  our  faith  ;  and  came  out, 
as  I  was  grateful  to  find,  thoroughly  and  emphati- 
cally fixed  on  every  point  of  our  common  soteriology. 

So  eminent  was  this,  that  I  found  myself  utterly 

*  See  " Fetich  in  Theology"  \  In  America. 


Preface.  g 

opposed  to  the  usual  changes  that  have  been  pro- 
posed for  our  Confession.  Depravity ;  I  found  it 
philosophical.  I  found  it  of  every  faculty,  and  in 
every  act.  Why  not  call  it'*  total"?  I  found  there 
were  but  two  commandments,  and  1  kept  neither; 
and,  therefore,  I  had  nothing  to  propose  in  the  way 
of  limit  or  qualification.  Imputation  ;  I  found  it 
forensic.  Adam  ;  I  found  him  my  ruin.  He  cor- 
rupted me  naturally;  but  he  corrupted  me,  also, 
federally.  That  is,  a  bad  child  cannot  come  from  a 
father  as  an  acorn  does  from  an  oak  ;  but  there  must 
be  justice  in  it.  There  must  be  some  arrangement 
of  law,  to  justify  my  corruption  by  my  parents.  Re- 
demption ;  I  believed  it  penal ;  conversion,  imme- 
diate ;  regeneration,  gracious ;  our  call,  effectual  ; 
our  helplessness,  entire;  and  our  justification,  adop- 
tion and  sanctification  all  that  they  are  ever  made, 
and  more,  than  by  these  mere  trust  believers.  More- 
over, I  believed  in  Christ.  I  found  him  to  be  literally 
God :  not  God  in  the  sense  that  he  was  not  a  man, 
or  in  a  way  that  none  of  us  entertain  it,  viz.,  that  the 
true  man  was  directly,  and  gna  man,  transmutedly 
the  Almighty  ;  but  that  he  was  God-man,  having 
God  incarnate  in  him  ;  and  that  he  was  all,  and  more 
than  all,  that  the  most  who  have  been  the  purest  in 
the  church  have  glorified  as  the  actual  Almighty. 

Moreover,  I  ennobled  his  redemption.  Had  he 
been  a  man,  I  could  not  trust  him  :  or  an  angel  ;  or 
a  God  in  the  Arian  sense ;  or  divine  after  the  Socin- 
ian  pattern.  To  me,  he  was  the  Maker  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  and  more  God  in  the  actual  sense,  than  he 
could  be,  under  my  old  ideas. 


10  Is  God  a  Trinity  ? 

Thus  there  emerged  out  of  all  my  inquisition  a 
remarkably  rigid  faith  ;  and  when  I  added  that  I  was 
a  jure  divino  churchman  ;  and  a  far  firmer  believer 
of  Scriptural  Presbytery  than  the  great  majority  of 
my  brethren :  and  when  I  rechallenged  all  this,  and 
found  it  seated  in  my  thought,  and  impossible  to  be 
removed  in  any  usual  intellectual  possibility  at  my 
time  of  life,  I  felt  quieted  from  restless  fever,  and 
riveted  in  devoted  affection  to  the  communion  in 
which  I  had  been  brought  up. 

Alas  for  me !  that  I  should  have  any  fear  that  I 
must  be  detruded  out  of  it! 

In  the  midst  of  all  these  studies,  I  found  one 
great  central  object  disappearing  out  of  the  firma- 
ment of  my  confession.  It  has  been  a  singular  his- 
tory. Years  ago  I  had  a  similar  onsault.  In  reading 
the  word  of  God,  the  Trinity  suddenly  deserted  me. 
I  said.  It  has  been  a  fanciful  conceit.  I  said.  The 
divinity  of  kings,  the  right  to  persecute,  the  blood 
of  Abraham,  the  grace  of  baptism,  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass,  have  reigned  unchallenged  in  the  church.  They 
are  the  *'  unsanctioned  fables"  of  which  Paul  speaks 
(i  Tim.  iv :  7).  Now  are  we  clear  of  such  like?  I 
was  clear  that  we  were  not.  And  there  broke  upon 
me  with  dismay  the  panic-driven  discovery  that  there 
was  no  Trinity ;  that  it  was  all  a  figment ;  that  it  was, 
not  odious  to  reason,  but  absent  from  the  Word  ; 
and  I  searched  and  searched  and  searched,  and  the 
discovery  almost  was,  that  the  Bible  was  colorless  of 
such  a  dogma,  and,  by  any  reasonable  mode,  could 
not  be  made  to  teach  those  hypostatic  differences. 

But  I  rallied.     I   thought  of  this   text ;    "■  The 


Preface.  1 1 

glory  that  I  had  with  thee"  (Jo.  xvii :  5) ;  I  thought 
of  this,  "  Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning"  (Heb.  i :  10) ; 
1  thought  of  this,  *'  By  whom  were  all  things  created" 
(Col.  i :  16) ;  I  thought  of  this,  "  Of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt,  xxviii : 
19):  I  made  a  thorough  reinspection  of  the  proofs, 
and  found  myself  restored  to  my  old  impressions. 

I  had  almost  forgotten  it. 

But  now,  a  second  time,  at  the  same  weak  places, 
when  I  was  inviting  a  thorough  review,  there  came 
upon  me  the  same  assault ;  and  the  texts  that  had 
stood  by  the  doctrine,  utterly  failed  me. 

Stirred,  as  I  naturally  would  be,  where  my  very 
church  was  slipping  away  from  me,  I  awoke  to  the 
full  seriousness  of  the  case.  I  gave  up  everything. 
For  three  months  I  did  nothing  but  inspect  the 
Trinity.  A  library  happened  to  be  near,  uncom- 
monly rich  in  all  that  literature,  and  I  did  the  best  I 
could.  I  scouted  very  soon  all  the  criticisms  of 
reason^  except  perhaps  those  that  doubted  whether 
there  was  any  thought  under  the  word  **  Person."  I 
saw  it  was  not  a  Bible  word.  But  my  investigations 
of  Scripture  led  me  to  a  verdict  hke  this, — that  if  the 
Bible  taught  the  Trinity,  it  taught  the  Mass  more 
and  better ;  that  its  teaching  both  was  fancied  by  a 
mistake  of  figures  ;  that  its  teaching  either  was  one 
of  the  vagaries  of  the  human  heart  ;  and  that  its 
teaching  neither  would  long  ago  have  been  the  faith, 
if  the  hypostatic  distinctions  of  the  Almighty  dis- 
turbed our  ransom  in  the  same  serious  way  as  did 
the  dishonored  sacrament. 

This,  then,  was  the  process  of  the  study.     Now 


12  Is  God  a   Trinity? 

for  the  result.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  Trinity.  It 
may  be  said,  You  are  a  Sabellian.  You  believe  that 
the  Father  is  God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  and  the 
Spirit  is  God.  But  you  do  not  believe  in  the  hypo- 
static difference  that  subsists  between  them.  You 
believe  in  a  modality.  You  believe  that  the  Creator 
is  God,  and  the  Redeemer  is  God,  and  the  Sanctifier 
is  God ;  and  that  these  are  but  modal  differences 
that  make  up  the  triplicity  of  the  Almighty. 

I  would  have  no  objection  to  that.  That  is,  I 
hold  that  these  names  are  all  different,  for  that  these 
offices  all  exist.  These  divine  appellatives  have  each 
a  different  sense.  I  would  have  no  objection  to  the 
man  who  made  these  senses  the  divisions  of  a  ser- 
mon ;  for  undoubtedly  God  has  all  these  features  of 
versatile  administration.  But  I  will  not  so  take  that 
critical  number,  THREE,  as  to  suppose  that  there  is  a 
norm  in  it ;  and  that  the  infinite  modalities  of  God 
are  circumscribed  by  any  Trinity.  I  will  not  admit 
any  intended  threeness.  And  after  my  three 
months'  wrestle,  I  will  speak  in  this  way, — ''  They 
call  him  Indra,  Mitra,  Varuna,  Agni  ;  then  he  is  the 
beautiful-winged  heavenly  Garutmat  :  that  which  is 
One,  the  wise  call  it  in  divers  manners :  they  call  it 
Agni,  Yam  a,  Materisvan"  {Rig-vcda  I.  164,  46) : 
"  Wise  poets  make  the  beautiful-winged,  though  he 
is  one,  manifold  by  words"  {R-v.  x:   114,  5). 

Now,  to  be  a  great  deal  more  precise.  All  that 
Dr.  Alexander  and  Francis  Turretin  would  impute 
of  Deity  to  Christ,  I  do,  and  perhaps  more.  That  is 
I  put  the  whole  Godhead  in  him.  I  make  the 
Father,  as  he  himself  seems  to  do  (Jo.  v :  19,  26,  36; 


Preface.  1 3 

vi  :  57;  x:  29,  30,  36),  his  Godhead.  My  gospel, 
therefore,  is  safe  :  my  redemption,  perfect.  Jeho- 
vah, among  the  old  Jews,  was  Christ  moving  about 
without  his  incarnation  ;  and,  if  you  ask  me  what 
that  means,  I  would  say,  It  was  God,  under  what- 
ever name,  administering  in  the  name  of  Emmanuel : 
pardoning  on  the  base  of  his  obedience  ;  creating  on 
the  faith  of  his  advent ;  and  intending,  in  the  full- 
ness of  time,  to  unite  himself  with  him  as  one  per- 
son, and  to  be,  as  plenary  God,  what  we  have  im- 
agined as  being  the  Eternally  Begotten. 

The  difficulties  of  this  will  hereafter  be  relieved 
by  Scripture. 

I  wish  only  to  say,  that  God  eternally,  and  before 
his  Incarnation,  is,  to  me.  One  Person  ;  that  God 
eternally,  after  his  incarnation,  is,  as  God,  One  Per- 
son ;  that,  Spirit,  Word,  and  Jehovah,  he  is  but  de- 
scribing himself  as  the  glorious  Almighty  ;  and  that, 
when  I  pray  for  the  Spirit ;  or  reverence  the  Son  ; 
or  worship  the  Father, — I  am  thinking  of  the  One 
Personal  God  :  and  that  it  would  have  been  infinitely 
better  never  to  load  the  faith  with  the  Platonic 
Trinity. 

You  may  say.  Explain  all  that. 

And  I  do  it  eagerly. 

"  That  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  indebted 
for  its  development  to  Christology,  is  universally  ac- 
knowledged" (Dorner,  I.  A.  p.  354).  Undoubtedly 
the  shock  that  this  preface  occasions,  is  due  to  our 
thought  for  the  gospel.  But  suppose  the  gospel  is 
in  no  sense  implicated.  Suppose  the  Arian  affects 
our  faith,  and  destroys  our  ransom  ;  and  suppose  the 


14  A  God  a   Trinity  ? 

Socinian  is  just  as  dangerous.  Suppose  the  Deity 
of  Christ,  and  the  helplessness  of  sin,  and  the  pre- 
ciousness  of  ransom,  have  all  been  denied,  by  pre- 
vious impugners  of  the  Trinity,  till  they  have  swollen 
themselves  into  monsters  of  unbelief.  May  not  that 
now  be  just  the  difficulty?  And  suppose  it  all  at 
last  different.  Suppose  a  new  dissection.  Suppose 
the  gospel  gloriously  honored.  Suppose  the  scheme 
carved  deeper ;  and  the  strength  of  God's  magis- 
terial claim  actually  heightened.  Suppose  redemp- 
tion made  to  stand  apart  like  the  works  of  a  watch, 
and  the  metaphysics  of  the  Deity  separate  like  the 
case  that  holds  them  in  ;  should  anti-trinity  thought 
be,  any  more,  looked  upon  as  fatal  ?  And  would  it 
not  be  a  preposterous  stand  ;  if  I  trust  in  Christ ; 
and  lean  upon  him  as  God  :  if  I  take  his  blood,  and 
wash  myself  in  it  as  the  divine  redemption  :  if  I 
make  him  the  whole  Jehovah,  and  think  he  will  reign 
so  forever  and  forever:  if  I  pray  for  his  Spirit,  but 
only  think  that  ''  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit"  (2  Cor.  iii : 
17),  and  that  in  praying  for  the  Spirit  I  am  praying 
for  God, — to  impugn  me  like  mortal  heretics  ? — pray- 
ing for  Christ,  or  praying  for  the  Father,  or,  if  you 
please,  praying  for  grace  in  any  guise  in  which  it  may 
be  revealed  most  beautifully,  to  say,  that,  because  I 
doubt  a  hypostatic  difference,  therefore,  in  what  men 
are  not  sure  they  have  an  idea  at  all,  I  wreck  my 
faith,  and  must  be  cast  out  of  my  communion.;^ 

And  that  brings  me  to  the  last  point. 

I  have  determined  to  be  scrupulously  exact  with 
my  brethren.  I  desire  to  be  humble,  too,  and  modest 
as  to  the  belief  that  I  am  right.     How  unspeakably 


Preface,  1 5 

absurd  the  attitude  of  one  just  in  my  place  to  arro- 
gate the  discovery  of  the  light,  when  the  very  mon- 
archs  of  the  world's  thought  have  been  piously  and 
earnestly  against  him ! 

But  I  must  do  something. 

I  had  thought  of  an  immediate  interview  with  my 
Presbytery.  But  my  friends  entreat  that  I  will  test 
every  position  to  the  very  last ;  and  that  if  I  find 
myself  irreclaimably  fixed,  the  result  of  all  this  indus- 
try and  care  may  be,  to  offer  my  beliefs  in  the  way 
most  easily  to  be  inspected  by  those  above  me. 

That,  then,  is  my  plan. 

But  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Would  to  God  I 
exactly  knew. 

I  am  clear  thus  far.  I  had  better  not  resign  my 
position  in  the  church.  1  doubt  the  legality  of  such 
a  move.  But  if  it  were  legal,  why  should  I  do  it  ? 
I  could  but  swim  back  thitherward  as  soon  as  I  was 
able.  Why  should  I  not  invite  my  Presbytery  to 
keep  me  in  ? 

And,  now,  as  to  the  possibility  of  that. 

Two  things  occur  to  me. 

(i)  In  the  first  place,  there  are  differences  already. 
Turretin  believes  that  Christ  was  generated  by  the 
Father.  So  does  our  Confession.  A  member  of  my 
Presbytery  teaches  that  that  is  no  where  taught  in 
Scripture.  Our  creed  teaches  a  marked  Eschatology, 
conspicuous  in  which  is  the  advent  of  Christ,  and  a 
judgment  at  the  last  day.  A  member  of  my  Presby- 
tery teaches  a  premillenarian  scheme  ;  and  traverses 
much  in  my  Confession.  So  of  an  external  church. 
My  Confession  accentuates  it.     My  brethren   make 


1 6  Is  God  a   Trinity? 

light  of  it.  The  six  days'  creation  :  that  is  taught 
in  our  symbols.  Who  believes  it  ?  I  myself  would 
be,  perhaps,  one  of  the  few  men  in  my  Presbytery  to 
adhere  prevailingly  to  the  ancient  thinking.  Now, 
who  will  draw  the  line?  A  man  publishes  one  year 
a  kenosisoi  the  Deity,  and  an  actual  suffering  of  God 
on  the  cross  on  Calvary.  He  is  an  excellent  brother, 
and  he  is  made  the  Moderator  of  the  next  Assembly. 
Undoubtedly,  then,  difference  from  the  Confession 
will  not  cast  a  man  out  of  the  Church.  The  ques- 
tion is,  How  serious  is  it?  And  my  course  seems  to 
be  to  defend  my  belief.  If  I  can  make  it  appear 
secondary;  if  I  can  show  that  I  hold  the  vitals  of  the 
gospel  ;  if  I  can  prove  that  I  am  not  a  Socinian  ;  if  I 
can  show  that  I  approach  my  faith  from  another 
quarter;  if  I  can  show  that  Arminius  and  Pelagius 
and  Arius  have  neither  tampered  with  me ;  but  that 
I  am  a  high  Calvinist  in  all  the  realities  of  my  creed, 
— then  my  Presbytery  will  have  to  determine  whether 
one  symptom  of  a  Socinian's  belief  cannot  become  a 
feature  in  a  far  lesser  disease,  and  whether  a  hypo- 
static difference  in  the  Godhead  is  in  such  sense  vital 
to  the  faith,  that  a  minister  must  go  out  of  his  church, 
even  if  he  puts  the  WHOLE  GODHEAD  in  Christ,  and 
builds  on  that  scheme  a  perfect  redemption. 

The  Presbytery  must  decide. 

(2)  But  may  I  not  say  another  thing  ;  How  is  a 
great  church  like  ours  to  be  corrected  of  any  error  ? 
It  may  be  answered.  It  has  none.  But  is  that  cer- 
tain ?  The  time  was  when  this  very  church  perse- 
cuted. The  time  was  when  it  was  largely  Jacobite. 
Across  the  sea  it  is  still  Erastian.     In  some  cases  at 


Preface.  I  j 

least,  it  holds  sacramental  error.  What  is  the  relief? 
Must  it  be  groomed  with  a  foreign  comb  ;  or  may  it 
do  something  to  its  own  recuperation  ? 

Suppose  the  Trinity  were  a  mistake  ;  suppose  it 
had  bestrid  the  gospel  in  its  earlier  planting.  Sup- 
pose it  were  a  Platonic  set,  grafted  by  the  Jews,  and 
inarched  from  them  into  the  faith  of  Christians. 
Suppose  that  John  opposed  it,  and  that  his  first 
strong  text  was  meant  to  fence  it  out  (Jo.  i :  i), — how 
is  the  church  to  become  satisfied  of  that?  Why 
may  there  not  be  a  little  pause?  And  why  must 
it  be  by  bell  and  torch  that  the  church  must  expel 
the  truth,  and  that  the  light  must  go  out  from  es- 
tablished fanes,  and  shine  into  some  shieling  church, 
that  nmst  become,  in  turn,  the  inveterate  oppressor  ? 

May  God  in  his  infinite  mercy  protect  the  truth  ! 
And  if  there  be  any  who  pity  me,  may  they  offer  this 
prayer, — first,  that  I  may  be  brought  out  of  danger- 
ous mistake  ;  and,  second,  that  I  may  behave  humbly 
and  well ;  so  that  when  I  have  gained  time  enough  to 
have  my  brethren  thoroughly  look  into  my  case  to 
see  whether  I  am  in  dangerous  error,  or  to  see 
whether  they  themselves  are  certain  of  their  faith,  I 
may,  if  the  Church  is  against  me,  do  nothing  to  dis- 
tract her  ;  but  step  aside,  with  a  modest  doubt  of  my- 
self, and  with  a  heightened  earnestness,  to  pray  and 
find  out,  after  such  a  verdict,  what  can  really  be 
known  of  the  truth  of  the  Almighty. 

JNO.  Miller. 

Princeton,  Oct.  2d,_i876. 


CONTENTS. 


I. 

PAGE 

THE   TRINITY  AND   REASON 23 


CHAPTER   I. 
The  Trinity  not  to  be  Judged  by  Reason 23 

CHAPTER   II. 
The  Trinity  to  Give  Some  Idea  of  Itself  to  Reason  . .     26 

CHAPTER   III. 

The  Trinity  with  no  Idea  :  no  Idea,  ever  Attempted 
FOR  a  Trinity,  not  Pronounced  no  Idea  at  all  by 
Accepted  Trinitarians. 27 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Trinity  with  no  Shelter  in  Infallibility 30 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Trinity  Accounted  for  by  History 33 


20  Contents. 

11. 


PAGE 

THE   TRINITY  AND  SCRIPTURE 39 


CHAPTER   I. 
Method  of  Treatment 39 

CHAPTER  II. 
God  the  Holy  Ghost 41 

§  I.    The  Unity  of  God 41 

§  2.    The  Unity  of  Goifs  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Different 

Names 43 

§  3.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Emblems  .  44 
§  4.    The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  His  Holy 

Spirit 45 

§  5.    The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  to  be  Disturbed  by  Gram- 

matic  Differences — and  first,  not  by   Diffet-ences   of 

Person 48 

§  6.    The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Differences 

of  Gender 5^ 

§  7.   The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Difference 

of  Nu7nber 54 

§  8.   The  Unity  of  Gods  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Difference 

of  Case 56 

§  9.    The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  any  other 

Differe7ices 5^ 

§  10.  No  Distinct  Personality  of  the  Spirit 67 

CHAPTER   III. 

God  the  Son 72 

§  I.    The  Deity  of  the  Son 72 

§  2.    The  Humanity  of  the  Son 72 

§  3.   The  Begetting  of  the  Son 73 


Co7itcnts.  2 1 

PAGE 

§  4.    The  Son  and  the  Spint 76 

§  5.    The  Son  and  the  Father 78 

§  6.   The  Son  as  Jehovah 80 

§  7.    The  Son  as  Sent 81 

§  8.    The  Son  as  Wisdom 82 

§  9.    The  Son  and  the  Logos 83 

§10.    The  Son  and  the  Creation 90 

§11.   The  Son's  Pre-existence lOO 

§12.  Angel  of  Jehovah 109 

§13.    The  Son  as  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 112 

CHAPTER   IV. 

God  the  Father 112 

§  I.  Meaning  of  the  Name II2 

§  2.  No  Name  or  Work  Sacred  to  One  Person 115 

§  3.    The  Father  as  Son 117 

§  4.    The  Father  as  Spirit 119 

§  5.    The  Father  as  Jehovah ^o    121 

§  6.    The  Father  and  His  Glory 125 

§  7.    The  Baptismal  Formula 127 

§  8.    The  Apostolic  Benediction 130 

§  9.    The  Scene  at  Jordan 131 


CHAPTER   V. 

The  Trinity  Nothing  to  the  Gospel 132 

§  I.    What  are  the  Gospel  Ideas ? 132 

§  2.   The  Incarnation 134 

§  3.  Redemption 134 

§  4.  Mediation 134 

§  5.  Intercession 137 

§  6.  Regeyieration 141 

§  7'  Justification 142 

§  8.  Adoption 144 

§  9.   Judgment    145 

§  10.  Sanctification 145 

§11.  Glorification 146 


22  Contents. 

III. 


PAGE 

CONCLUSION 148 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Scandal  of  this  Book 148 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Benefit  of  this  Book 15 1 


THE   TRINITY   AND    REASON. 


CHAPTER   I. 


The  Trinity  not  to  be  Judged  by  Reason. 

I  WISH  to  set  forward  the  statement,  that  I  am 
moved  to  this  book  by  Scripture.  In  order  to  do 
this,  I  hold  the  ground  that  the  Trinity  is  not  to  be 
judged  by  reason.  In  order  to  do  this,  I  follow  that 
statement,  and  show  that  it  is  very  peculiar.  Every- 
thing x?,  to  be  judged  by  reason.  Until  it  be  true 
that  the  eye  is  no  judge  of  color,  it  will  never  be  true 
that  reason  is  no  judge  of  anything  ;  for,  in  fact, 
there  is  no  judge  of  anything  but  reason;  and  of  all 
that  our  race  can  conceive,  reason  is  the  sole  and 
universal  arbiter. 

What  is  meant,  therefore,  by  reason  being  no 
judg^e  of  the  Trinity?  Let  me  explain  by  the  in- 
stance of  gravitation.  Reaching  far  back  to  absolute 
sight,  and  to  those  most  obstinate  of  all  demonstra- 
tors of  truth,  mathematical  figures,  the  mind  has 
been  forced  into  the  faith  that  there  is  a  gravitation. 
It  is  no  judge  of  the  phenomena,  afterward.  The 
man  who  is  prolific  of  difficulties,  and  tells  us  that 
gravitation    is   impossible ;    and  who   backs   up   his 


24  The   Trinity  and  Reason, 

thought  by  saying  that  the  sun  is  ninety-four  mil- 
Hons  of  miles  away,  and  that  its  grappling  the  earth 
over  that  distance  is  a  sheer  conceit,  we  laugh  at. 
Let  the  sun  get  over  his  own  difficulties.  We  have 
forever  demonstrated  the  truth,  that  he  does  attract ; 
and  all  inter-situated  puzzles  we  neglect.  Reason  is 
a  judge  of  everything  ;  but,  having  made  her  judg- 
ment back  at  the  original  truth,  we  know  what  we 
mean  by  saying,  that  she  is  no  judge  of  the  doctrine 
afterward. 

So  of  the  Trinity.  In  a  way  that  is  universal 
and  confessed,  reason  has  made  her  judgment  of  the 
word  of  God.  This  is  a  broad  field  ;  and  she  has 
examined  it  thoroughly.  This  is  the  all-comprehen- 
sive fact  ;  and  she  has  established  it  by  outward  and 
inward  evidence.  She  has  come  to  the  strongest 
faith  (and  no  disciple  of  the  Redeemer  will  lightly 
cavil  at  it),  that  the  Bible  is  the  voice  of  the  Al- 
mighty ;  and  this,  not  by  mystic  partialities,  but  by 
reasonable  tests,  which  lift  her  ever  afterward  above 
the  fear  of  what  is  contained  in  the  recognized 
canon. 

This  is  what  is  meant  by  reason  being  no  judge 
of  the  Trinity. 

The  Papist  has  a  kindred  submissiveness.  He 
does  not  deny  the  authority  of  reason  ;  but^  he  has 
spent  all  her  power  in  examining  into  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  There  has  been  his  original  ques- 
tion. He  holds  you  to  be  right  in  testing  him  there. 
And,  if  you  would  witness  patience,  you  have  but  to 
look  at  his  books  on  the  church.  Where  you  are 
building  up  the  authority  of  Scripture,  he  is  laying 


Reason  not  the  Judge.  25 

the  corner  stone  of  Zion  ;  and  it  is  only  after  you 
have  accepted  the  church,  that  he  lays  his  hand 
upon  your  mouth,  and  tells  you  that  you  have  no 
right  of  private  judgment  afterward. 

And  to  show  how  sincere  we  are  in  all  this,  we 
say  plainly,  If  the  Mass  were  in  the  Bible,  we  would 
believe  the  Mass.  The  Papist  believes  it  on  the 
authority  of  the  Church.  We  would  believe  it  on 
the  authority  of  Scripture.  And,  in  either  case, 
man's  appeal  is  to  his  rational  nature  ;  for,  in  the  one 
case,  it  has  led  him  to  accept  the  Church,  and  in  the 
other.  Scripture  ;  and  it  is  only  on  the  lower  ground, 
that  he  denies,  in  such  things  as  the  Trinity  and  the 
Mass,  any  right  to  the  judgments  of  the  mind. 

But  it  may  be  said.  What  if  a  doctrine  seems  flat 
against  reason  ?  Even  then  I  would  not  disown  it. 
We  have  seen  the  reasonableness  of  this  in  the  in- 
stance of  gravitation.  If  Paul  tells  me  to  persecute 
the  heretic,  I  will  do  so,  as  the  voice  of  the  Almighty  ; 
if  he  pronounces  boldly  upon  the  truth  of  Jacobitism, 
I  am  a  Jacobite  ;  if  he  tells  me  that  Christ  is  in  the 
wafer,  I  believe  it  :  and  my  principle  is  here  : — I  am 
under  a  great  hardship,  and  my  conscience  revolts  at 
the  texts,  but  I  am  the  devotee  of  a  great  process. 
I  have  gone  through  all  labored  proofs.  My  con- 
science, and  everything  besides,  pronounces  for  the 
Bible ;  and,  when  that  great  huge  fact  comes  athwart 
that  lesser  one,  a  belief  in  transubstantiation,  I  yield. 
Bring  me  any  miserable  faith  that  does  not  positively 
deny  the  grace  of  the  Almighty,  and,  if  you  can  de- 
ceive me  so  far  as  to  make  it  Scriptural,  I  will  accept 
it  ;  and  on  the  sheer  base  that  I  have  accepted  the 


26  The  Trinity  and  Reason. 

word  of  God  as  '*  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Trinity  to  Give  some  Idea  of  itself  to    Reason. 

But,  though  we  admit  that  the  Trinity  is  not  to 
be  judged  by  reason  ;  and  though  the  fact  of  tran- 
substantiation,  if  you  will  prove  that  it  is  taught  in 
the  word  of  God,  I  will  compound  for  as  made  pos- 
sible by  some  mysterious  miracle ;  though  I  will  be- 
come an  Inquisitor,  in  spite  of  all  its  contradiction  of 
conscience,  and  will  get  over  this  difficulty  by  re- 
membering that  heretics  are  the  property  of  God  ; 
though  I  will  believe  in  the  right  of  kings,  to  the  ex- 
tent of  enduring  a  bad  king  even  though  I  could  un- 
seat him,  if  you  will  convince  me  that  God  ordains 
it ;  and  I  will  hold  He  is  the  Lord  of  Providence,  and 
can  adjust  the  consequences  of  all  His  commands, — 
yet  there  is  one  right  that  reason  retains,  and  that  is, 
to  know  distinctly  what  it  is  that  it  believes.  To  say, 
I  believe  in  the  Mass,  and  to  be  left  with  nothing  but 
the  four  letters  ;  or  to  say,  I  am  a  Jacobite,  or,  if  you 
please,  I  am  an  Inquisitor,  and  leave  me  no  idea 
under  the  formula  professed, — is  of  course  the  most 
awful  solecism.  And,  therefore,  coming  now  to  the 
case  of  the  Trinity,  if  when  you  come  to  propound 
the  doctrine,  you  give  me  positively  no  conception  of 
it,  it  is  preposterous  beyond  the  need  of  a  discussion. 
I  wish  to  draw  a  distinction  between  understanding 
a  doctrine,  and  having  a  conception  of  it.  I  under- 
stand no  doctrine  under  the  sun.     I  have  a  concep- 


Trinitarianism  with  7io  Meaning  for  Trinitarians.  27 

tion  of  every  doctrine.  That  is  to  say,  No  doctrine 
can  possibly  be  embraced,  that  remains  wrapt  up  in 
an  expression,  so  that  positively  no  thought  comes 
out  from  what  is  spoken.  I  wish  to  insist  upon  this, 
upon  the  very  outset  of  our  teaching.  What  is  the 
Trinity?  It  may  be  said,  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Three  in  One.  Of  course  our  first  landing  place  is 
upon  the  reserve  that  God  is  Three  in  a  different 
sense  from  his  being  One.  But  when  we  come  to 
remember,  this  is  a  mere  speech,  this  is  a  mere  ex- 
siccated shell;  this  is  no  form  of  thought,  till  we  say 
what  the  sense  is.  And  there,  now,  precisely  is  our 
position.  Reason  is  no  judge  of  that  sense  after  it  is 
once  announced.  But  the  Trinity  is  no  doctrine  at 
all,  and,  therefore,  in  the  court  of  intellect  must  be 
held  by  hypocrites;  or  else  some  conception  must  be 
given,  in  what  sense  God  can  be  Three,  and  yet  the 
most  simple  of  all  possible  existence. 

Think  of  excommunicating  a  man  from  the 
Church  for  failing  to  believe  that  of  which  you  can 
give  him  no  idea  ! 


CHAPTER   III. 

The  Trinity  with  no  Idea  :  no  Idea,  ever  Attempted  for  a 
Trinity,  not  Pronounced  no  Idea  at  all  by  Accepted  Trini- 
tarians. 

And  I  am  the  more  confirmed  in  this  careful 
preliminary,  because  every  idea  of  Trinitarianism 
that  has  ever  been  held,  has  been  declared  to  be  no 
idea  at  all  by  accepted  Trinitarians.  I  confess  that 
this  is  no  positive  argument.  In  the  first  place,  it  is 
19 


28  The   Trinity  and  Reason. 

impossible  to  declare  who  are  accepted  Trinitarians 
In  the  second  place,  the  argument  would  not  be 
positive,  if  we  could.  There  might  be  ten  men  that 
held  a  particular  doctrine  ;  and  each  nine  might  de- 
nounce the  tenth,  in  turn,  as  holding  it  in  a  form 
that  is  perfectly  unmeaning.  This  would  not 
amount  to  refutation.  All  the  classes  of  nine  might 
be  wrong,  and  yet,  if  one  reflects  a  moment,  one 
man  of  the  ten  might  survive  as  right. 

Let  me  illustrate,  (i)  Our  Confession  speaks  of 
the  "  Eternally  Begotten."  The  idea  there  contained 
is,  that  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  is  eternally 
derived.  Hosts  of  thinkers  pronounce  that  unmean- 
ing. And  one  of  our  most  distinguished  divines  dis- 
agrees with  Turrettin;  would  conceive  derivation 
unthinkable  ;  and  boldly  declares  that  it  is  not 
taught  in  the  word  of  God  (Hodge,  Theol.  V.  i  :  p. 
486).  It  will  be  noticed,  therefore,  that  a  man  who 
denies  the  Trinity  altogether,  is  but  denying  that 
which,  in  one  form  or  other,  has  been  denounced  as 
senseless  by  the  most  pious  of  the  orthodox. 

Again : — 

(2)  The  Trinity  has  been  held  to  be  the  One 
conscious  Divinity.  Sherlock  objected  to  this  ;  and 
denied,  in  that  case,  the  possibility  of  threeness.  He 
found  in  the  Bible  separate  wills  ;  and  proclaimed,  as 
his  notion  of  all  that  could  be  thought  of  as  Three, 
separate  consciousnesses.  John  Howe  partially  de- 
fended him.  The  Church  broke  out  against  him. 
And,  yet,  he  never  lost  his  See :  and,  though  his 
belief  was  unvarnished  Polytheism,  yet  it  was  dis- 
tinctly enforced,  on  the  principle   we   mentioned, — 


Triiiitarianisni  zvitJi  no  Meaning  for  Trinitarians.  29 

that  the  opposite  was  unmeaning  ;  that  a  belief  re- 
quires something  to  be  conceived  ;  and  that,  if  God 
is  Three  Persons,  it  is  Hke  saying  he  is  a  gnoot,  or 
Abracadabra,  unless  it  is  a  tri-personal  Three,  in  the 
sense  of  separate  intelligence. 

(3)  Andover  has  furnished  another  theory.  Schlci- 
ermacher,  explaining  Sabellius,  has  rather  adopted 
his  thought,  that  the  Trinity  became  a  Trinity  in 
time  :  that  God  did  not  eternally  create  ;  and  that 
he  did  not  eternally  redeem :  that,  therefore,  he  be- 
came each  of  these  in  time :  that  the  Trinity  is  the 
Creator  and  Redeemer  and  Sanctifier;  and  that, 
therefore,  God  grew  to  be  these  ;  and  that  this  is 
the  meaning  of  the  inspired  Trinity. 

Moses  Stuart  modified  this  into  a  scheme.  He 
said  ;  and  this  was  the  foundation  of  his  system  ; 
that  what  God  lived  to  become  in  time,  he  was  fitted 
to  become  from  all  eternity.  And,  therefore,  his  fit- 
ness to  become  this  or  that,  was  his  trine  relation. 
Accordingly,  without  pursuing  this  account,  it  will 
still  farther  illustrate  our  understood  position.  This 
learned  man's  appeal  was  to  the  iiselessness  of  the  nn- 
meayiing;  and,  seeming  to  forget  that  God  was  fit 
for  a  multiplicity  of  things  from  all  eternity;  that  he 
came  to  paint  black,  and  to  paint  yellow  ;  that  he 
came  to  make  stars,  and  to  make  flowers  ;  and  that 
it  was  impossible  to  distinguish  between  what  might 
be  called  Trinitarian  fitnesses,  and  fitnesses  for  less 
hypostatic  things, — he  nevertheless  continued  in  the 
church,  unchallenged  ;  and  yet  managed  to  add  an- 
other whole  theory  to  the  faith,  which  lived  only  by 
denouncing  everything  else  as  vague  and  notionless. 


30  The  Trinity  and  Reason, 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Trinity  with  no  Shelter  in  Infallibility. 

Thus  the  doctrine  is  like  Maelzell's  Chess-Player. 
We  open  each  door  in  turn,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
it.  Yes,  some  one  will  say,  there  was  a  man  in  the 
Chess-PIayer,  after  all.  I  grant  it ;  but  on  terms 
that  no  avowed  Trinitarian  will  be  willing  to  admit. 
There  was  a  man  in  the  Chess-Player,  because,  be- 
fore each  opening,  he  altered  his  position.  A  man 
proposes  a  Trinity :  another  man  exposes  it.  He 
offers  his  in  turn,  and  some  third  man  shows  there  is 
nothing  in  it.  He  asseverates  another,  and  a  fouith 
man  opens  that  door,  and  finds  it  empty.  Now,  a 
notion  can  be  supported  in  this  way ;  but  it  is,  as  a 
missile  is,  by  flying  through  the  air.  I  do  not  make 
a  point  of  all  this  ;  and  I  discard  reason  as  an  inter- 
mediary. But  this  I  do  say,  that  reason  ought  not 
to  be  suborned  against  us. 

Try  any  company. 

Go  among  twenty  ministers,  and  say, — Our  fellow 
presbyter  has  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
The  very  first  bubbling  up  of  censure  will  be  from 
that  form  of  reason  which  is  embalmed  in  the  vote 
of  the  vast  body  of  believers.  The  arrogance  of  the 
presbyter ! — is  the  first  thing  that  will  strike  every 
body.  But  how  long  should  this  outcry  last?  Al- 
ways, if  the  Church  is  infallible  ;  and,  past  doubt,  the 
Church  is  infallible  in  vital  matters.  Let  us  consider 
this.     There  has  always  been  a  church.     There  can- 


The   Trinity  and  Infallibility.  31 

not  be  a  church  without  a  gospel.  There  cannot  be 
a  gospel  if  there  be  damning  error.  Immunity  from 
damning  error  is  of  the  very  faith  of  the  gospel. 
And,  therefore,  when  Papists  claim  infallibility,  they 
are  groping  after  some  truth.  And  he  is  not  hastily 
advised,  who,  convinced  of  the  piety  of  his  Zion, 
claims  that  Christ  keeps  it  (Matt,  xvi:  18;  xxviii : 
20),  and  holds  that,  let  the  Trinity  be  among  the 
vitals  of  the  scheme  of  grace,  it  is  among  the  infalli- 
bilities of  true  believers. 

But  now,  definitely,  there  is  covered  up  the  very 
question. 

The  ritualist  holds  that  baptism  is  of  necessity  to 
grace.  If  so,  it  is  vital.  And  if  so,  some  church  will 
possess  it. 

The  orthodox  hold,  that  Christ  is  necessary  to 
pardon.  If  so,  that  is  vital.  And  if  so,  the  church 
will  never  lose  that  doctrine. 

It  is  this  true  figure  of  infallibility  that  moves 
darkly  in  the  background,  and  gives  rancor  to  reli- 
gious hate  ;  for  when  a  man  has  been  sufficiently  ridi- 
culed for  pitting  himself  against  the  profound  and 
pious,  then  this  that  is  ghostly  comes  in,  and  he  is 
made  to  tremble  for  his  pride  in  arraying  himself 
against  the  church  of  the  Redeemer. 

How,  then,  may  we  meet  infallibility?  By  rejoic- 
ing and  trusting  in  it ;  and  by  singing  psalms  to  God 
that  we  are  invulnerable  through  our  infallible  Re- 
deemer: but  not  in  any  way  that  is  prescriptive. 
Paul  gives  the  rule  : — "  Prove  all  things.  Hold  fast 
that  which  is  good."  Doctrine  must  be  vital  first ; 
infallible  afterward.    Otherwise  Luther  was  apostate. 


2,2  The  Trhiity  and  Reason. 

Here  is  a  fellow  presbyter.  He  comes  to  us  in 
the  fairest  way.  He  invites  us  to  the  closest  scru- 
tiny. He  says,  Here  is  my  system  of  Christ.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  Trinity,  like  the  Old  Man  of  the  Sea, 
has  jumped  npon  the  back  of  Sinbad,  and  made 
Christianity  coarse  and  heavy  through  all  its  journey. 
I  believe  it  is  a  robbery  of  the  heathen.  I  believe  it 
awakened  Mohammed.  I  believe  it  has  worn  out 
missionaries.  I  believe  it  has  kept  back  Pagans,  who 
were  obliged  to  perish  in  their  sins,  while  their  nation 
waited  to  learn  an  "  unsanctioned  fable"  (i  Tim.  iv : 
7).  I  believe  the  great  God  in  heaven  was  born  him- 
self into  Jesus,  "and  so  was  and  continueth  to  be, 
God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures,  and  one  per- 
son, forever"  (Sh.  Catechism,  Qu.  21).  I  believe 
just  this  is  sufficient  ;  and  that  ransom,  and  grace, 
and  divine  power,  and  all  that  was  needed  of  sacrifice, 
and  that  all  that  there  will  ever  be  of  glory,  is  suf- 
ficiently secured  in  this  One  Person,  Jehovah. 

And  if  a  Christian  says  to  me,  Avaunt  as  a  heretic, 
and  never  examines  my  faith,  and  never  says.  Is  this 
discriminateness  sufficient?  if  he  never  says.  Is  not 
the  Trinity  with  this  man  a  minor  doctrine  ?  and, 
even  if  he  be  in  error,  does  he  not  hold  the  chief 
truths  ?  and  has  he  not  a  well  knit  system  ;  and  does 
he  not  seem  to  say  all  for  Christ  except  that  there  is 
a  hypostatic  difference  between  him  and  the  Father? 
— if  he  has  never  done  any  thing  for  me  like  that, 
I'll  tell  you  what  he  is  like  ;  he  is  like  the  man  that 
threw  the  first  stone  at  Stephen,  because  he  pro- 
claimed the  GaHlean ;  he  is  like  the  court  that  im- 
prisoned Ken  because  he  refused  the  Declaration  ;  he 


W/iat  Bred  Such  a  Doctrine,  33 

IS  like  the  priests  that  burned  Huss  on  the  plea  that 
he  decried  the  sacrament.  And  there  is  a  family 
likeness  which  I  wish  particularly  to  press ;  which 
claims  a  just  infallibiHty,  but  which  sins  only  in  this, 
— that  it  brings  within  the  reach  of  that  blessing  of 
God  minor  things,  under  the  claim  that  these  are 
of  the  essentials  of  salvation. 

Men  are  not  to  choose  how  able  shall  be  the  man 
who  discovers  error.  The  mouse  is  not  to  be  weighed 
who  eats  the  lion  out  of  the  net.  Galileans  bearded 
Jewry.  A  miner's  son  shook  St.  Peter's.  Poor  peas- 
ant women  sickened  the  world  of  martyrdoms.  And 
if  the  humblest  minister  can  put  the  Trinity  along- 
side of  the  consecrated  wafer,  and  make  both  seem 
figments  of  the  sense,  the  Church  has  nothing  to  do 
but  to  examine  it,  and,  laying  all  prerogative  apart, 
give  thanks  for  her  infallible  life,  when  she  has  thor- 
oughly understood  and  thoroughly  made  good  that  it 
is  fatal.^ 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Trinity  Accounted  for  by  History. 

Any  of  us  would  say,  before  study,  that  the 
Trinity  is  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Any  of 
us  would  at  least  declare,  that  it  was  revealed  in  the 

*  Is  there  not  something  that  proves  the  Trinity  a  superstition  in 
the  very  Creed  of  Athanasius,  and  in  the  fact  that  the  church  has  not 
awoke  her  thunders  against  that  long  ago.  Let  us  quote  a  part  of  it. 
"  Whosoever  will  be  saved  must  hold  the  Catholic  faith.  The  Catholic 
faith  is  this, — that  we  worship  one  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in 
Unity,  neither  confounding  the  persons  nor  dividing  the  substance. 
For  there  are  three  persons,  but  one  Godhead.  The  Father  is  neither 
3* 


34  TJie   Trinity  and  Reason. 

Bible.  Any  of  us  would  suppose,  that  it  was  taught 
in  the  first  age  of  the  church. 

Now,  to  cutoff  all  wandering,  and  to  confine  our- 
selves to  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  1  would  say  that 
all  these  things  have  been  doubted,  and  doubted  too 
by  Trinitarians  themselves.  Athanasius  holds  that 
the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  a  Trinity.  I  mention 
other  names  in  the  margin."^  Bellarmin  holds  that 
it  is  no  where  taught  in  Scripture.  He  builds  it  on 
tradition.  Petavius  holds  that  it  was  not  caught  by 
tradition.  That  is,  he  quotes  from  the  fathers,  and 
shows  that  it  was  not  known  in  the  first  age  of  the 

made,  created,  nor  begotten.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone,  not 
made,  nor  created,  but  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding; 
and  in  this  Trinity  none  is  afore  or  after  another  ;  none  is  greater  or 
less  than  another.     This  is  the  Catholic  faith,  which  except  a  man 

BELIEVE  FAITHFULLY,    HE   CANNOT   BE    SAVED."      That    this    SpurioUS 

creed,  fraudulently  palmed  upon  the  church,  and  which,  whatever 
Athanasius  might  have  thought  of  it,  never  saw  Athanasius,  and  was 
written  centuries  after  he  was  dead, — should  survive  with  vigor,  and 
be  treated  with  general  respect,  is  itself  an  invitation,  I  think,  to  a 
reinvestigation  of  the  whole  subject ;  and  to  a  strong  suspicion  of  a 
faith  that  speaks  so  definitely  of  inconceivable  things  ;  and  wields  so 
insolently  the  anathemas  of  heaven  for  that  of  which  the  good  people 
of  an  earlier  world  must  certainly  have  had  no  idea. 

*  "  The  Papists  deny  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  to  be  found 
in  Scripture.  See  this  plainly  taught  and  urged  by  Card.  Hosius, 
de  Auth.  S.  Scrip.  L.  Ill :  p.  33  :  Gordonius  Hunlaeus,  Cont.  Tim. 
Cotnb.  de  Verbo  Dei,  c.  19  ;  Gretserus  and  Zanerus,  in  Colloquio  Rat- 
isbon  ;  Vega,  Possevin,  Wickius.  .  .  These  learned  men,  especially 
Bellarmin,  and  Wickius  after  him,  have  urged  all  the  Scriptures  they 
could,  with  the  utmost  industry,  find  out  in  this  cause,  and  yet,  after 
all,  they  acknowledge  their  insufficiency  and  obscurity." — Locke's 
Commonplace  Book.    Kings  Life  of  Locke,  Vol.  II.  p.  104. 


What  Bred  Such  a  Doctrine.  35 

church."^  Now  what  does  that  prove?  Why,  that 
tradition  is  very  colorless  ;  and  that  reason  can  do 
very  little,  on  that  tack,  to  relieve  the  faith. 

Now,  another  matter.  * 

History  accounts  for  things. 

If  I  am  waked  up  by  Scripture,  and  utter  a  cry, 
Why,  where  is  the  Trinity?  and  suddenly  search,  and 
find  myself  deserted  of  the  idea,  I  naturally  ask.  How 
did  it  arise  ?  and  not  in  a  way  that  we  can  pronounce 
decisive,  and  yet  in  quite  a  sufficient  way,  we  find 
how  it  could  have  arisen. 

Plato  invented  a  Trinity  :  some  think,  by  him- 
self; some  think,  out  of  a  spark  of  tradition.  It  is 
not  in  a  form  that  Christians  love  ;  and  many  deny 
that  it  had  any  common  origin  with  ours.  While 
Plato  was  working  in  the  schools,  Rabbis  were  work- 
ing in  the  Law,  and  making  changes  in  it ;  that  is, 
they  were  writing  Targums,  that  is  to  say,  paraphra- 
ses of  the  text.  These  were  read  in  the  Synagogues. 
One  of  the  changes  that  the  paraphrases  made  was, 
to  put  *'  Word  of  Jehovah*'  for  "Jehovah."  They 
found  it  once  or  twice  (Ps.  xxxiii :  6  ;  cv :  19),  and 
it  fell  in  with  reigning  thought,  and  they  took  out 
the  word  "Jehovah,"  and  they  put  in  "Word  of 
Jehovah"  two  hundred  times.  The  Jewish  ear, 
accordingly,  was  accustomed  to  it ;  and,  when  Alex- 
andria was  built,  and  the  Septuagint  was  written,  and 
the  Alexandria  Jews  became  the  repositories  of  law, 
Philo  and  the  men  that  preceded  him  worked  upon 
these  Targums,  and  brought  in  Platonic  aid  ;  and 
the  writings  remain  which  actually  cast  the  Scrip- 
*  Pet.de  Trin.l.s,-]'.  8,2. 


y 


^6  TJie   Trinity  and  Reason. 

tures  into  Platonic  moulds.  Now,  what  was  the 
result  ?  Confessedly  a  species  of  Arianism.  These 
men  deified  the  Word :  not  as  I  do,  by  making  it  a 
name  of  God  ;  but  contrariwise,  by  making  it  an 
emanation.  They  did  not  all  agree  :  and  Philo  him- 
self was  better  than  others  of  the  school ;  but  the 
tendency  was  this, — to  say.  The  Word  was  an  ema- 
nation. It  was  not  God  :  and  it  was  not  man  ;  but 
it  was  between  them.  It  was  not  God  ;  and  it 
was  not  a  creature  ;  but  it  was  an  emanation.  It  was 
not  eternal ;  and  it  was  not  yet  to  arise ;  but  it  was 
intermediate  and  in  time.  The  distinct  teaching 
was,  that  the  Word  was  an  emanation  from  God  ; 
subordinate  ;  intermediate  ;  and  the  origin  of  all  the 
creatures. 

Thence  bring  it  to  account  that  this  teaching  was 
in  all  the  schools  ;  and  that  John  came  upon  the 
stage  when  pious  thouglit  was  helplessly  saturated 
with  all  these  ideas. 

What  was  he  to  do  with  them  ?  Reply  ?  Why, 
they  were  chameleon-like ;  and  had  no  fixed  ex- 
pression. Not  reply  ?  Why,  that  would  be  to  be 
waterlogged  with  hopeless  prevarications.  What 
could  he  do?  Precisely  what  he  did  do.  "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word  ;"  thus  shearing  away  all 
thought  of  an  emanation  in  time  :  ''  And  the  Word 
was  with  God"  (E.  V).  Let  me  alter  that  at  once. 
The  preposition  never  means  ivithJ^     We  have  the 

*  Perhaps  I  had  better  temper  this  by  saying,  that  the  few  excep- 
tions that  might  be  imagined  (as  Mar.  vi :  3  ;  Matt,  xiii :  56),  are  not 
absolute  exceptions  ;  and  perhaps  I  had  better  refer,  for  the  facts 
about  this  preposition,  to  Gesenius.     He  is  a  fair  party  to  quote,  be- 


W/iat  Bred  Such  a  Doctrine.  37 

expression,  *'  things  pertaining  to  God"  (E.  V.:  Heb. 
ii  :  17;  v:  i).  The  preposition  means  ^'  toivards,'' 
or  '' pertaining  to!'  Let  us  read  it  so.  "  In  the  be- 
ginning was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  pertained  to 
God."  That  is,  it  did  not  emanate  and  go  out  and 
become  subordinate  and  intermediate,  but  it  was 
simply  God's  word.  It  was  Hke  God's  arm,  or  God's 
power.  It  was  just  God  expressing  himself,  and  God 
revealing  himself,  as  though  he  had  said,  like  Paul, 
"  Whom  therefore  ye  ignorantly  worship,  him  de- 
clare I  unto  you"  (Acts  xvii :  23). 

But,  to  cut  off  all  mistake,  he  gives  another  and 
most  trenchant  expression.  ''  In  the  beginning  was 
the  Word,  and  the  Word  pertained  to  God,  and  God 
was  the  Word."  Alford  admits  that,  if  it  be  trans- 
lated this  way^  it  denies  the  Trinity  !  and  old  Mid- 
dleton  has,  for  decades,  stood  like  a  tower,  to  say 
that  the  Greek  must  be  reversed.  It  is  a  judgment 
upon  the  Greek  article  (Gram.  iii.  s.  4,  §  i)  ;  but  the 
finest  scholars  have  now  reversed  that  opinion 
(Winer,  Glassius,  etc!).  The  old  Vulgate  never  obeyed 
it.  And  the  article  has  another  way  to  account  for 
itself,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  specific  mark  that  it  is  *'  the'" 
Word  in  the  great  reigning  sense, — which,  John 
would  teach,  was  nothing  but  the  Almighty. 

But  we  are  anticipating.  We  are  not  among 
Scriptures  yet.  We  quote  this  in  the  way  of  historic 
elucidation. 

We  verily  believe   much   could   be  made  of  his- 

cause  his  very  principles  are,  to  the  very  utmost  bent,  to  supply  the 
force  of  "  with"  in  this  very  passage.  And  yet  the  strict  reader  will 
see,  for  all  that,  which  way  his  authority  inclines.     See,  also,  Winer. 


38  The  Trinity  and  Reason, 

tory;  and  that  we  could  trace  the  Trinity  like  the 
fossils  in  a  rock.  Indeed,  we  think  that  it  is  impossible 
that  it  was  an  apostolic  dogma,  if  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  it  is  thought  vital,  and  that  it  is  laid  down 
so  infinitely  not  so  in  their  books.  But  let  all  this 
pass.  We  are  now  finishing  our  account  of  reason  ; 
and  all  we  wish  to  do  is,  to  bind  it  hand  and  foot, 
now  that  we  have  got  out  of  it  a  decision  for  the 
canon,  while  we  ask,  simply,  what  that  canon  says. 
Let  us  suppose  an  idea.  Let  us  ijuagine  that  we  ap- 
prehend it.  Let  it  be,  with  more  or  less  sense,  tri- 
plicity  in  unity ;  and  while  with  reverent  appeal  we 
beg  to  be  enlightened  in  the  word,  let  reason,  on  the 
other  side,  not  treat  us  in  any  way  we  do  not  de- 
serve, after  our  appeal,  like  Paul's,  has  gone  to  a 
higher  tribunal. 


II. 

THE  TRINITY  AND   SCRIPTURE. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Method  of  Treatment. 


The  best  way  to  prove  a  doctrine  Is  to  state  it 
clearly,  and  then  show,  text  by  text,  that  it  is  sup- 
ported in  the  word  of  God.  This  is  the  method  of 
expert  scientists,  when  they  discard  a  theory  like 
emission,  and  establish  a  doctrine  like  undulation,  as 
the  true  theory  of  light.  It  is  eminently  the  natural 
way.  They  state  their  theory  clearly,  and,  then, 
open  the  book  of  nature  ;  and  their  highest  exulta- 
tion is,  when  fact  after  fact  weaves  beautifully  in, 
and  when  such  a  phenomenon  as  two  light  rays 
fitting  wave  into  wave  and  producing  darkness,  de- 
monstrates the  undulation  of  the  ether,  rather  than 
its  direct  emission. 

Should  I  take  this  most  natural  plan,  therefore, 
I  should,  first,  state  my  express  doctrine  of  God.  I 
should  say,  God  is  one  person.  I  should  say,  God  is 
incarnate  in  Christ.  I  should  say.  No  hypostatic 
difference  separates  off  the  Father  from  the  Son  ; 
but   the    one   God   is   Emmanuel.  God  with   us.     I 


40  TJie   Trijiity  and  Scripture. 

would  say,  God  furnishes  a  Mediator,  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  ;  and  the  suitedness  of  that  Mediator  is, 
first,  that  he  is  a  man,  to  stand  between  God  and  us, 
and,  second,  that  he  is  God,  to  bring  the  whole  be- 
ing of  the  Godhead  in  to  give  value  to  his  atonement, 
and  to  furnish  the  regenerating  power  ;  the  idea  be- 
ing that,  on  the  side  of  God,  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  one  ;  and  that  it  is  only  on  the  side  of  man  that 
the  Son  stands  off  from  the  Father,  and  can  be 
looked  upon,  with  the  higher  truth  in  the  emblem, 
as  a  glorious  Mediator  (i  Tim.  ii :   5). 

Then  my  part  would  be,  to  trace  this  in  the 
Word:  to  show,  wherever  I  read,  that  my  doctrine 
is  the  one  advanced,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity ;  to  show  that  one  agrees,  and  the  other  does 
not  agree,  with  the  main  tenor  of  the  book  ;  and  to 
show,  as  I  confidently  might,  that  where  the  Trini- 
tarian has  spun  a  tenuous  thread  of  apparent  con- 
nection for  his  scheme,  the  Bible  itself  breaks  it ; 
that  is,  that  a  discrepance  in  God,  shadowily  made 
out  by  a  discrepance  in  facts  or  titles,  is  carefully 
obliterated  ;  some  wave  of  simple  denial  coming  up 
from  the  Word,  to  wash  out  the  lines  of  distinction 
that  might  seem  to  have  been  implied  in  other 
passages. 

This  plan  we  should  have  preferred.  This  plan 
would  be  noble,  for  example,  in  blotting  out  from  the 
dream  of  the  church  baptismal  regeneration. 

But  now,  simply  to  meet  a  prejudice,  I  take  an- 
other. Theology  is  an  intricate  scheme ;  and  men 
have  gotten  to  believe  that  anything  can  be  tortured 
out  of  the  Bible.     If  I  state  my  theory,  and  then  go 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  41 

on  to  find  it,  men  will  say,  and  say  truly,  that  my 
glow  of  enthusiasm  is  just  that  which  infidels  have, 
when  they  are  picking  up  the  ingots  of  truth,  as  they 
regard  them,  in  physical  nature. 

My  plan,  therefore,  will  be  worse,  but  more  con- 
ciliating. I  will  not  take  theism  bereft  of  hypostases, 
and  then  prove  it ;  but  I  will  take  my  adversary's 
ground,  and  follow  it  along  as  long  as  it  will  bear 
me ;  and  when  I  come  to  the  spot  where  Scripture 
forsakes  it,  I  will  put  the  staff  into  my  neighbor's 
hands.  I  will  not  frame  a  doctrine,  and  then  support 
it ;  for  the  mass  will  say,  I  am  expounding  to  suit 
myself.  But  I  am  going  to  take  my  neighbor's  doc- 
trine, and  follow  it  along  as  far  as  we  agree.  And 
where  we  differ,  I  am  going  to  make  my  neighbor 
expound.  In  other  words,  I  am  going  to  take  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  strip  it  of  all  in  which 
we  all  agree  ;  and  then  I  am  going  to  take  the  dry 
husk  that  remains,  bereft  of  all  that  I  can  see  estab- 
lished, and  ask  my  neighbor  to  establish  it  ;  in  other 
words  take  the  HYPOSTATIC  DIFFERENCES,  which  are 
the  only  points  which  this  book  rejects,  and  simply 
stand  on  my  watch,  and  refuse  anything  baseless  that 
may  be  supposed  to  cover  them. 


CHAPTER  II. 
God  the  Holy  Ghost. 

§  I.   The   Unity  of  God. 

Acting  on  this    method, — My  neighbor  and    I 
agree  in  the  unity  of  Jehovah.     I  would  not  be  satis- 


42  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

fied  with  meekly  counting-  this  as  an  agreement,  if  my 
neighbor  did  not  insist  that  his  merely  dividing  Je- 
hovah into  Persons  did  not  interfere  with  His  essen- 
tial unity.  If  this  were  a  new  controversy,  the  whole 
would  be  abhorrent.  I  would  quote  at  once,  and  in- 
sist upon  the  great  zeal  of  the  Bible  to  cut  off  every- 
thing like  division.  "  Hear,  O  Israel ;  the  Lord  our 
God  is  one  Jehovah"  (Deut.  vi :  4).  But  when,  in 
the  long  controversy  of  ages,  my  neighbor  tells  me 
that  all  this  has  been  considered  ;  when  he  takes  the 
passage,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one"  (Jo.  x  :  30),  and 
calls  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  "  one''  is  neuter, 
and,  therefore,  merely  means  one  substance,  one 
essence  ;  and  when  he  takes  the  opposite  text,  ''  Now 
a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one,  but  God  is  one" 
(Gal.  iii :  20),  and  says,  True  enough,  the  ^^  one'"  is 
masculine,  but  it  means  one  Person  as  Jehovah,  re- 
ferring to  a  different  personality  from  that  of  the 
Trinity, — I  decline  debate;  I  take  the  man's  theory 
as  he  holds  it.  I  think  it  too  long  a  path  to  weary 
him  down  on  these  isolated  texts  :  but  I  take  his 
theory  :  his  theory  is,  There  are  three  persons  :  he 
tells  me  it  is  consistent :  I  mean  by  that,  that  he  pro- 
fesses to  see  a  consistency  between  the  absolute  unity 
of  God  and  three  Persons :  *  and,  therefore,  I  follow 
the  plan  that  I  have  stated.  I  take  the  unity  of 
God,  and  consider  it  a  ground  on  which  we  both 
unite.  And  then  I  ask  him  to  go  further.  And 
when  he  expounds  to  me  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  of 
one  essence  with  the   Father,  I  say.  Beyond  doubt, 

*  Though  the  Bible  says,  "  There  shall  be  one  Jehovah,  and   his 
name  one"  (Zech.  xiv  :   9). 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  43 

but  beg  him  to  leave  this  ground  in  which  we  both 
agree,  and  lead  me  to  the  ground  in  which  I  can 
Scripturally  see  the  disturbance  into  different  Per- 
sons. 

§  2.    The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by 
Different  Names. 

Of  course  he  cannot  do  that  on  the  basis  of  differ- 
ent names.  If  he  quote  the  words,  The  Father  and 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  no  matter  where  it  can 
be  found,  whether  in  gospel  form  (Matt,  xxviii  :  19), 
or  priestly  benediction  (2  Cor.  xiii :  14),  it  proves 
not  a  single  thing.  The  exuberance  of  the  East 
multiplies  appellations.  That  their  sense  is  different, 
affords  no  evidence  at  all.  And  a  confirmation  of 
this  is,  that  nobody  dreams  so.  The  Mighty  God, 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  the  King  in  Zion,  and  any 
unnumbered  list,  Jehovah,  Redeemer,  the  Lord  our 
Righteousness, — on  any  account  of  their  number, — or 
on  any  account  of  their  diversity  of  sense, — are  no 
proof  of  a  Trinity.  There  must  be  more  special  rea- 
soning. For,  thus  far,  all  parties  must  agree  ;  that 
the  Holy  Ghost,  for  example,  as  an  appellation,  is 
not  to  be  set  down  as  not  an  appellation  for  the  Al- 
mighty, or  to  be  set  off  to  some  distinguishable  Per- 
son, except  for  special  reasons  different  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  a  different  name,  or  that  it  means  differ- 
ently from  other  words  for  the  Most  High. 

Again  we  are  in  agreement,  therefore.  No  man 
would  take  the  words,  Jehovah,  and,  the  Lord  Al- 
mighty, and,  simply  because  they  mean  differently, 
conceive    a   hypostatic    difference.     We   still   have, 


44  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

therefore,  the  evidence  unfurnished.  If  the  Trinity 
is  true,  we  are  driving  in  all  imaginary  outposts,  and 
taking  the  very  wisest  plan  to  shut  it  in  its  citadel, 
and  make  it  tell  its  actual  clue  for  its  discovery  in 
the  Word  of  God. 

§  3.    The  Unity  of  God's  Perso7i  not  disturbed  by 
Emblems. 

It  cannot  prove  itself  by  emblems — I  mean  by 
the  mere  fact  of  emblems. 

If  I  read  of  the  "  arm  of  God,"  there  is  no  reason 
that  I  should  discuss  it.  There  is  no  demand  in  the 
English,  and  none  especially  in  the  richness  of  the 
East,  that  I  should  even  stop  to  notice  it.  The 
''  hand  of  God,"  the  ''  eye  of  God,"  the  ''  foot  of 
God,"  and  a  perfect  wilderness  of  such  expressions, 
require  not  a  word  of  comment.  I  should  only  vex 
people  by  stopping  to  explain.  If  I  should  ask,  Is 
the  "  arm  of  God"(Is.  h  :  9)  the  same  as  God,  people 
would  laugh  at  me ;  not  that  the  question  might  not 
be  answered.  Yes,  and  No,  but  that  when  it  was  an- 
swered both  ways,  with  every  possible  distinction, 
the  very  best  mind  would  be  less  clear  than  it  was  at 
the  beginning.  All  men  understand  such  expres- 
sions. Trinitarians  could  make  a  list  of  them  by 
hundreds  ;  and  they  would  never  dream  that  they 
had  reference  to  a  Trinity.  And  if  I  were  to  read, 
•'  The  word  of  God,"  they  would  agree  with  me — I 
am  sure  a  fair  Trinitarian  would, — that  the  ""prima 
facie"  impression  should  be,  that  it  is  a  mere  em- 
blem. He  would  admit  that  he  must  bring  contrary 
evidence  from  otherwheres  ;  and  that  the  "  finger  of 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  45 

God"  is  no  less  evidence  of  a  divine  Person,  than 
"  the  word  of  God"  (Ps.  cvii :  20),  if  it  is  to  be  any- 
thing in  the  emblem  itself  that  is  to  reveal  to  us  the 
mighty  difference. 

§  4.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  His 
Holy  Spirit. 

Here,  then,  we  are  confronted,  in  a  way  easy  for 
the  estimate  of  proof,  by  the  mention  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Let  us  proceed  cautiously. 

Imagine  our  reading  of  "  the  Spirit  for  the  first 
time. 

To  a  Hebrew  eye  the  word  would  be  "  breath.'' 
We  read  it  as  ''  spirit''  We  read  it  by  a  word  that 
has  strayed  away  from  its  sense.  But  the  Hebrew 
had  only  partly  done  so.  It  was  like  a  bird  with  the 
shell  still  partly  upon  its  back.  Therefore,  when  the 
Jew  read  about  the  ''  spirit,"  he  was  really  reading 
about  "  breath"  ;  and  the  word  remained  sufficiently 
often  in  itssenseof  "^czVz^af"  (Gen.  viii :  i),  or  in  its  sense 
of  "'  breatli'  (Is.  xxx  :  28),  to  make  him  the  exegete 
each  time  the  word  occurred.  And,  therefore,  when 
he  read  of  the  Breath  of  God  (Ps.  xviii :  1 5),  the  most 
candid  arguers  must  confess,  that,  even  if  it  appeared 
to  him  as  Spirit,  and  even  if  he  had  grown  familiar 
with  what  is  meant  by  the  spirit  of  man,  he  would 
not  be  led,  in  the  multiplicity  of  Bible  emblems,  to 
keep  it  out  generically  from  the  class  of  God's  finger, 
or  God's  eye,  or  God's  power,  which  are  to  be  taken 
as  they  stand,  without  any  reference  at  all  to  any 
Trinity. 


46  TJie  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

When  any  violence  is  done  to  this,  I  mean  to  the 
simple  stand  that  no  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  to  be 
learned  from  emblems,  see  what  a  desperate  work  is 
made.  The  whole  emblematic  skies  break  into  hypo- 
static differences.  Listen  to  Cyprian.  He  says,  *' That 
Christ  is  the  hand  and  arm  of  God."  He  finds  it  in 
Isaiah  ;  ''  Is  God's  hand  not  strong  to  save?  or  has 
he  made  his  ear  heavy  ?"  (Is.  lix  :  i).  The  singular 
thing  is,  that  such  men  drop  the  *'  ear,"  and  take  the 
"arm,"  without  the  least  logical  remorse:  just  as 
modern  Trinitarians  drop  the  '*  finger"  (Lu.  xi :  20), 
and  take  the  spirit  (Matt,  xii :  28),  without  the  least 
halting  at  their  implied  equivalency.  "Also  in  the 
Siame  place,  *  Lord  who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  and 
to  whom  is  the  arm  of  God  revealed  ?' (Is.  liii :  i) : 
also  in  the  same,  *  All  these  things  hath  mine  hand 
made'  (Is.  Ixvi :  2) :  also  in  the  same,  '  O  Lord  God, 
thine  arm  is  high,  and  they  knew  it  not*  (Is.  xxvi : 
i) :  also  in  the  same,  *  The  Lord  has  revealed  his 
arm,  that  holy  arm,  in  the  sight  of  all  nations'  (Is. 
lii:  10):  also  in  the  same  place,  'The  hand  of  the 
Lord  hath  done  these  things,  and  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  hath  shown  them' :  Is  xli :  20."  (Cyprian,  Vol. 
II.  p.  loi,  Clark's  Ed).  This,  of  course,  as  a  rcdiictio 
ad  absurdiini,  carries  the  war  directly  into  the  Trinity. 
The  Valentinians  furnished  the  like.  They  said  that 
"  Arche*  was  a  divine  Hypostasis,  distinct  from  the 
Father  and  the  Z^^^^-"  (Irenaeus,  Haer.  I:  viii :  5). 
The  Patristic  view  made  it  the  "  Divine  Sophia"  (Or- 
igen).  Cyril  made  it  the  "  Everlasting  Father"  (see 
Meyer  on  John  i :  59).     All  which  most  distinctly 

*  "  The  beginning"  (Jo.  i :  i). 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  47 

teaches  ;  that  there  has  been  a  tendency  In  the  theo- 
logic  world  to  do  just  what  our  fathers  did  with  the 
wafer,  that  is,  to  exalt  it  into  a  mystery,  and  to  make 
the  simple  utterance,  *'  This  is  my  body,"  imply  a 
divine  sense,  utterly  beyond  the  meaning  of  the 
emblem. 

"  Wisdom"  is  scarce  so  ripe  an  instance  ;  for  the 
majority  of  commentators  cling  to  it  yet.  It  is  in- 
structive in  that  respect.  It  is  a  myth  in  the  transi- 
tion stage  between  a  superstition  and  more  sound 
intelligence.  The  church,  giving  up  the  "  ArcJie^' 
and  the  church  giving  up  the  "Arm,"  and  the 
"  Hand,"  and,  now,  the  church  slowly  giving  up  the 
hypostatic  "  Wisdom,"  and,  let  me  add,  giving  up 
the  wafer,  and  giving  up  the  mystic  baptism,  may  be 
a  type  of  the  church  giving  up  the  Trinity;  and, 
therefore,  this  transition  link,  viz.,  the  Divine  5^- 
phia,"^  may  be  looked  upon  with  more  concern,  as 
showing  how  fast  or  how  slow  the  church  will  change 
her  theories  in  other  Scriptures. 

Look  well,  indeed,  at  this  instance  of  wisdom. 
It  is  loaded  with  hypostatic  appearances.  "  The 
Lord  by  wisdom  hath  founded  the  earth"  (Prov.  iii: 
19).  I  hardly  know  how  personification  could  have 
been  carried  further.  "  I  love  them  that  love  me, 
and  those  that  seek  me  early  shall  find  me"  (viii  : 
17).  The  Sophia  leaps  upon  the  throne  of  the  uni- 
verse. "  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  unto  you  ;  I  will 
make  known  my  words  unto  you"(i :  23).  There  is 
emptied  upon  it  an  exuberance  of  Eastern  prosopo- 
pceia.     And  so,  if  we  hypostasize  anywhere,  why  not 

*  "Wisdom." 


48  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

in  this  moving  and  speaking  reality  ?  And  yet  all 
the  time,  close  under  the  eye  of  the  church,  and  still 
unlistened  to,  are  the  most  ample  texts  (Job  xxviii: 
28;  Ps.  cxxxvi  :  5;  Prov.  iv :  5,  7),  to  show  that 
wisdom  is  mere  piety  ;  that  the  Lord  by  wisdom  has 
founded  the  heavens,  just  as  he  is  righteous  in  all 
his  ways  ;  that  "  by  me  kings  rule,"  just  as  justice 
and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  a  throne;  and 
that,  categorically.  Wisdom  is  righteousness  (Prov.  i : 
2,3);  a  statement  made  just  where  it  should  be,  at 
the  opening  of  the  Proverbs  ;  but  singularly  over- 
looked in  a  false  and  ungrammatical  translation."^ 

Emblems,  therefore,  are  no  evidence  of  a  Trinity. 
And  the  abuse  of  emblems,  made  hypostatic  and  then 
universally  recalled,  will  bring  the  church  to  this 
mind, — first,  that  there  is  a  proclivity  to  typical  mis- 
take, and,  second,  that  there  should  be  the  most 
inexorable  care,  to  sift  the  evidence  before  we  di- 
vide the  Deity. 

§  5.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  to  be  Disturbed 
by  Grannnatic  Differences — and  Firsts  not  by  Differ- 
ences of  Person. 

Verging  on  to  points  where  more  special  evi- 
dence is  imagined,  I  think  we  may  still  maintain 
agreement  with  Trinitarians  in  saying,  that  differ- 
ences of  person,  in  a  grammatic  sense,  are  not  to 
establish  the  Trinity.  I  know  it  has  been  imagined 
differently.  I  know  that  advocates  of  Trinitarian 
belief  have  said,  that  the  Thou  and  the  I  and  the 
He   in   the  mouths  of  the   Father,   Son  and   Holy 

*  See  Author's  Commentary,  Prov.  i:  i,  2. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  49 

Ghost,  in  speaking  of  each  other,  betokened  hypo- 
static distinction.  I  know  that  they  have  brought 
this  into  the  forefront,  and  given  it  a  phicc  as  though 
it  were  an  irrefragable  appeal.  But  did  they  really 
mean  that  this  did  anything  more  than  merely  match 
the  facts  ?  Did  they  mean  that  it  established  them  ? 
They  can  hardly  have  meant  the  latter ;  for  the  ex- 
pression ''  Awake,  O  Sword,  against  my  Shepherd" 
(Zech.  xiii :  7),  would  then  mean  that  the  Sword  was 
a  separate  hypostasis.  Or  the  expression,  "  His  arm 
shall  rule  for  him"  (Is.  xl :  10) :  or  the  expression, 
"  Awake,  O  Arm  of  the  Lord"  (Is.  li :  9).  I  do  not 
deny  that  if  there  be  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  then  I, 
Thou  and  He  would  agree  with  the  facts.  But  that 
is  not  the  question.  As  there  is  man  and  God  in 
Christ,  I,  Thou  and  He  agree  with  the  speaking  of 
Christ,  and  communing  in  his  human  nature  di- 
rectly and  perpetually  with  the  Divinity  that  was 
within  him.  Such  were  not  the  points  at  issue. 
The  points  at  issue  are,  whether  God,  outside  of 
Christ,  is  so  distinguishable  into  three  hypostatic 
personages,  as  that  the  grammatic  persons  prove  the 
hypostases,  or  that  the  I,  Thou  and  He  are  actual 
evidence  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  the  God- 
head. 

And  that  they  are  not,  take  these  texts,  ''  Bless 
the  Lord,  O  my  soul"  (Ps.  ciii :  i).  Does  that  prove 
that  the  soul  and  I  are,  in  any  sense,  different  ?  Take 
this  text,  "  And  then  will  I  say  to  my  soul.  Soul,  take 
thine  ease;  eat,  drink  and  be  merry"  (Lu.  xii :  19). 
Or  take  this,  "  My  heart  said  unto  me,  Thy  grace. 
Lord,  will  I  seek"  (Ps.  xxvii  :  8j.  "  My  soul,  wait 
3 


50  The   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

thou  only  upon  the  Lord,  for  my  expectation  is  from 
him"  (Ps.  Ixii :  5).  See  the  force  of  my  reasoning. 
It  is,  that  if  the  Trinity  were  estabhshed,  there  are 
moulds  of  Scripture  into  which  it  would  run,  just  as 
there  are  grammatic  differences  that  agree  with  the 
idea,  that  a  man  was  united  with  the  Almighty. 
There  are  modes  of  speech  that  will  fall  easily  into 
place,  if  it  were  found  that  a  man  and  his  soul  could 
commune  and  hold  intercourse  together.  But  the 
proof  of  the  original  fact  must  be  outside  the  gram- 
mar. I  think  we  have  swept  our  horizon  on,  and  not 
as  yet  discovered  a  distinct  article  of  proof,  which, 
even  an  honest  promoter  of  the  Trinity  would  be 
likely  to  declare,  could  build,  in  its  own  strength,  the 
smallest  demonstration. 


§  6.  TJie   Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by 
Differ enees  of  Gender, 

Now  as  to  gender. 

The  argument  here  is  twofold.  First,  it  may  be 
said.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  neuter,  and,  therefore,  so 
bold  a  severance  proclaims  something  very  distinct 
hypostatically.  And,  second,  the  Holy  Ghost,  though 
neuter,  has  the  masculine  pronoun,  as  though  the 
divine  text  would  take  pains  to  intimate,  that  this 
Spirit,  first  hewn  off  by  being  neuter,  should,  never- 
theless, be  redacted  into  a  Person,  by  force  of  the 
grammatic  proof  to  be  gathered  from  the  pronoun. 

Now  this  is  somebody's  proof;  and  there  ought 
to  be  somebody  willing  to  stand  for  it.  And  when 
somebody  is  willing  to  stand  for  it,  he  ought  really 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  51 

to  stand.  Theology,  among  all  possible  schemes, 
ought  to  retrench  its  arguments,  till  it  gets  down  to 
those  which  it  can  possibly  vouch :  and  when  it  has 
arrived  at  them,  it  ought  to  stand  by  them.  It  ought 
to  be  willing  that  they  should  stand  distinct  ;  and, 
when  they  distinctly  and  by  their  own  merits  fail,  it 
ought  to  give  them  up  ;  and  not  carry  into  the  war 
crippled  and  everywhere  defeated  evidence. 

For,  look  now  at  these  genders.  In  the  first 
place,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  found  to  be  neuter,  because, 
in  many  a  text,  it  is  really  neuter ;  that  is,  it  verges 
gradually  from  meaning  God,  through  all  possible 
shades  of  thought,  till  it  means  a  creature.  This  was 
the  secret  of  the  Arian  mistake.  There  were  so  many 
passages  inapplicable  to  the  Almighty,  that  they 
seemed  forced  into  some  other  scheme  ;  and,  there- 
fore, conceived  of  the  Highest  of  the  Creatures,  in- 
stead of  that  Holy  Ghost  which,  in  most  of  the  texts, 
was  nothing  but  the  Almighty.  Why  can  we  not 
resort  to  a  simpler  exegesis  ?  The  arm  of  the  Lord, 
or  the  power  of  the  Lord,  or  the  voice  of  the  Lord, 
are  nothing,  qua  essentia,  but  God  Himself.  They 
might,  or  might  not,  be  neuter,  just  as  it  might  hap- 
pen. They  might,  or  might  not,  in  rhetoric,  be  con- 
vertible with  the  name  of  the  Almighty.  But  who 
would  require  that  some  nurse  should  go  with  him, 
hke  a  Duenna  with  a  child,  to  pencil  the  shades  of 
meaning  ?  and  who  would  not  be  pestered,  if,  instead 
of  being  left  to  his  own  quick  conceptions  as  he  reads, 
he  were  followed  by  somebody,  incessantly  to  explain 
how  much  the  hand  or  the  foot  or  the  breath  of  Je- 
hovah was  convertible  with  Himself,  or  how  far  it  was 


52  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

to  be  considered  distinct,  and  was  subjective  or 
resultant  in  its  character  ? 

So,  now,  in  the  instance  of  the  Spirit.  Some- 
times it  is  plainly  God  ;  as  where  it  says,  "  Now  the 
Lord  is  that  Spirit"(2  Cor.  iii  :  17).  Sometimes  it  is 
plainly  man  ;  as  where  it  says,  ''  Every  spirit  that 
confesseth"  (i  Jo.  iv:  2).  And  between  these  there 
are  all  grades.  It  is  a  mere  question  of  rhetoric,  how 
quenching  the  Spirit  (i  Thess.  v:  19),  or  sowing  to 
the  spirit  (Gal.  vi :  8),  or  "  your  love  in  the  Spirit" 
(Col.  i  :  8),  or  lusting  against  the  spirit  (Gal.  v  :  17), 
or  joining  to  the  Lord  in  one  Spirit  (i  Cor.  vi:  17), 
or  standing  fast  in  one  Spirit  (Phil,  i :  27),  or  worship- 
ping God  in  the  spirit  (Phil,  iii ;  3),  or  the  ornament 
of  a  meek  and  quiet  spirit  (Jas.  iii :  4),  may,  or  may 
not,  refer  to  God,  or  to  God  subjective  in  the  soul  ; 
that  is,  to  the  soul  itself  imbued  with  the  grace  of 
the  Most  High. 

Undoubtedly  the  whole  emblem,  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  ought  to  keep  near,  for  its  exegesis,  to  the 
idea  of  a  breath.  When  we  say,  God  is  a  Spirit,  we 
wander  a  little.  God  is  not  a  breath.  God  is  the 
most  solid  of  all  subsistencies.  When  we  say,  God's 
Spirit  is  himself,  we  talk  more  rationally.  It  is  like 
saying,  God's  power  is  himself;  or  God's  arm,  or 
God's  word  is  but  himself  acting  or  uttering  his  voice. 
But  when  we  say,  God  is  a  Spirit,  it  is  like  saying, 
God  is  an  arm  or  a  shoulder.  It  is  not  a  natural  ex- 
pression ;  and,  therefore,  let  me  say  just  here,  It  is  no 
where  found  in  the  word  of  God.  Christ  says  to  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  "  The  true  worshipper  shall  wor- 
ship the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth"  (Jo.  iv :  23). 


God  the  Holy  GJiosi  53 

And  then  he  adds,  "  spirit  is  God"  (v.  24).  This 
passage  has  been  wonderfully  per\'erted.  Middleton 
has  helped  the  delusion  by  saying  that  the  article 
betokens  the  subject  (Chap,  iii :  s.  4,  §  i).  I  will 
not  dwell  upon  this.  Winer  has  amply  refuted  it* 
(Gram.  §  18,  7).  Suffice  it  to  say,  The  order  is  given 
in  the  Greek.  And  it  is  not,  "  God  is  a  spirit,"  which 
would  be  an  unprecedented  sentence  ;  but,  "  spirit  is 
God  ;"  that  is,  the  worshipping  seat  in  man  is  con- 
science, which  is  the  voice  of  the  Almighty,  that  is 
to  say,  the  spirit  which  is  bred  within  him  of  God. 
"  Spirit  is  God  ;"  and,  therefore,  ''  they  that  worship 
him,  must  worship  him"  in  the  God-part  ;  that  is 
"  they  that  worship  him,  must  worship  him  in  spirit 
and  in  truth"  (v.  24). 

Returning  to  this  passage  at  another  stage  of  our 
inquiry,  I  say,  There  is  plenty  of  reason  why  Spirit 
should  be  neuter;  first,  and  very  prominently,  be- 
cause it  happens  to  be  neuter,  i.  e.,  the  word,  and, 
second,  because  it  is  used  in  so  many  subjective 
ways,  the  disseverances  of  which  are  to  be  made  by 
the  simple  reader. 

So  much  for  the  first  argument. 

Now,  for  the  second. 

We  meet  the  second  by  an  immediate  denial. 

The  first  argument  was,  that  Spirit,  being  neuter, 

*  I  do  not  mean  that  Winer,  either  here  or  in  Jo.  i :  I,  translates 
as  we  do  ;  but  I  mean  that  he  refutes  Middleton's  rule.  So  do  Glas- 
sius  and  Rambach.  See  also  Rohricht  in  Jo.  i  :  i.  See,  moreover, 
Middleton  himself;  who  does  not  make  the  rule  absolute  ;  but  states, 
with  great  reasonableness,  why  the  subject  should  tisnally  have  the 
article  ;  reasons  which  throw  their  strength  the  other  way  in  the  in- 
stances with  which  we  are  at  present  concerned. 


54  TJic   Trinity  mid  Scripture. 

it  was  very  different  from  the  Father  ;  a  very  good 
Arian  argument  ;  but  not  very  good  for  the  ortho- 
dox. The  second  argument  was,  that,  though  neu- 
ter, it  drew  to  itself  the  mascuHne  pronoun  ;  an  ar- 
gument that  I  heard  the  other  day  in  a  sermon  ;  an 
argument  not  conclusive,  if  it  were  correct  ;  but  an 
argument  singularly  unhappy,  inasmuch  as  it  is  King 
James  that  puts-in  the  masculine  (e.  g.  Jo.  xiv:  17 
XV :  26).  With  an  uniformity  that  would  be  hard  to 
equal,  the  Greek  pneiuna  is  every  where  followed  by 
neuters  (Mar.  i:  10;  Jo.  vi  :  63;  xiv:  17;  Gal.  iv: 
6)  ;  and  almost  the  only  places  where  it  varies,  is 
where  the  emblem  has  been  kindled  into  a  higher 
glow  by  the  use  of  the  word  Comforter,  which  is  a 
masculine,  and  which  once  or  twice  (Jo.  xv  :  26  ;  xvi : 
13,  14)  draws  the  Spirit  Into  its  gender,  and  creates 
the  cases,  which  are  the  sole  warrant  for  any  such 
thought  of  change. 

The  change  of  the  neuter,  therefore,  in  the  com- 
mon noun  pneiLina,  is  anything  but  an  argument  ; 
in  the  first  place,  because  it  would  be  but  a  higher 
instance  of  personification,  and,  in  the  second  place, 
because  it  does  not  occur,  at  all  in  the  measure,  or  at 
all  under  the  circumstances,  which,  as  an  argument 
it  would  lead  us  to  suppose. 

§  7.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Dif- 
ference of  Nnnibcr. 

Number  possesses  advantages  over  person  and 
over  gender  if  anything  could  be  made  out  of  these 
grammatic  differences.  Number  stands  out  in  actual 
letters.     For  example,  God  (Elohim)  is  in  the  plural. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  55 

There  is  no  blinking  the  fact  of  this  unnatural  name ; 
and  no  resisting  the  conclusion  that  it  must  have  some 
peculiar  explanation.  If  it  were  but  once,  or  if  it 
were  but  of  one  name  ! — but  sometimes  Maker  (Ec.  v  : 
7;  xii  :  i),  sometimes  the  Most  High  (Dan.  vii  :  18), 
oftener  Lord  {passim),  are  presented  in  the  plural. 
And,  then,  there  are  whole  sentences  ;  "  Let  us  make 
man"  (Gen.  i :  26) :  "  Let  us  go  down"  (xi :  7) :  "  Let 
us  confound  their  languages"  (ib.)  ;  "  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness"  (i  :  26)  :  "  Be- 
hold, the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us"  (iii  :  22)  :  sen- 
tences that  have  been  eyed  curiously  for  hundreds 
of  years  ;  and  that  were  looked  at  very  closely  by  the 
schoolmen,  as  betokening  a  Trinity. 

But  now,  as  of  all  other  rights  that  can  be  pled, 
certainly  it  may  be  pleaded  that  orthodox  men  shall 
choose  whether  these  do,  or  do  not,  support  what  has 
been  imagined. 

Strange  to  say,  here  has  been  a  difference. 

Men  have  found  it  so  easy  to  explain  these  plu- 
rals. Some  have  said,  they  were  regal  plurals,  as 
when  a  king,  or  high  officer  of  State,  said  "  we"  or 
"us."  Some  said  they  were  plurals  of  honor  (Ge- 
senius,  Lex  :),  a  form  quite  familiar  in  other  passages 
of  Scripture  (Gen.  xxxix:  2,  Prov.  i:  *20  ;  xxiv  :  7). 
Some  said,  they  were  the  remains  of  polytheism,  and 
habits  bred  upon  speech  by  a  plurality  of  Deities 
(Naegelsbach,  Heb.  Gram.).  Some  said  they  were 
comprehensive  terms,  intended  to  associate  the  angels 
(Philo) ;  or  intended  to  gather  in  all  traits,  like  sha- 
mayim  for  heaven,  or  like  mayim  or  hayim  for  water 
or  hfe  (Ewald,  Dietrich).     This  last   is  probably  the 


56  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

best  solution.  But  our  object  is  altogether  in  the 
way  of  argument.  What  it  means,  or  what  it  does 
not  mean,  does  not  concern  us,  unless  it  is  insisted 
that  it  means  the  Trinity.  So  that  we  have  a  right 
to  ask,  Is  this  the  case  ?  Great  numbers  have  utterly 
abandoned  it.  So  has  Hengstenberg.  So  have  the 
great  mass  of  the  learned.  So  have  nearly  all  who 
are  not,  in  a  conglomerate  way,  going  back  to  all 
traditional  arguments.  I  merely  ask,  Am  I  to  answer 
it  ?  If  I  am  not,  I  shall  leave  nothing  posted  in  my 
rear.  If  I  am,  I  simply  resort  to  this  : — I  say.  The 
most  devoted  Trinitarians  admit  that  it  can  prove 
nothing  by  itself;  and  I  explain.  Not  simply  because 
it  can  mean  so  many  things  ;  but  because  it  would 
mean  too  much ;  for  if  God  hypostatically  differs, 
because  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  plural,  then  the  Spirit 
hypostatically  differs,  and  wisdom  hypostatically  dif- 
fers ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Spirit  must  be  in  seven  per- 
sons, because  he  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  seven  Spirits 
of  God"  (Rev.  iii  :  i),  and  *'  wisdom"  must  be  divided 
similarly,  because  it  is  stamped  with  the  same  mark  ; 
that  is,  it  has  the  same  plurality  of  name,  and  that 
by  no  unfortunate  accident  of  manuscript  revelation 
(Prov.  i:  20). 

Number,  therefore,  can  do  nothing  for  a  Trinity. 

Nor  can  case. 

§  8.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Dif- 
ference of  Case. 

Jehovah  is  often  in  the  nominative  where  some 
other  name  of  God  appears  in  the  accusative,  and 
where  action  and  reaction  are  insisted  upon  as  show- 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  57 

ing  that  the  Actor  and   the  Acted-on   must  be  in  a 
distinct  hypostatical  condition. 

But  now,  boldly, — God  sent  his  truth  (Ps.  xliii : 
3;  Ivii  :  3).  Does  that  legitimately  mean  that  God, 
and  the  truth  that  he  sent,  are  different  agencies? 
God  sent  down  his  power  (Acts  x  :  38).  Does  that 
mean  what  the  argument  would  imply?  I  know 
that,  if  there  be  a  Trinity,  there  is  no  contradiction 
at  all  in  such  expressions;  and,  therefore,  two  things 
must  be  kept  in  mind, — what  a  sentence  will  tally 
with,  and  what  it  will  prove.  It  will  tally  with  the 
Trinity  to  say,  God  sent  forth  his  word  (Ps.  cvii :  20). 
But  to  take  two  texts,  and  say,  Send  down  thy 
power,  and,  Send  down  thy  Spirit ;  and  say.  One 
proves  a  Trinity,  and  the  other  does  not  ;  or  to  say. 
Send  out  thy  word  (Ps.  cxlvii  :  18),  and  "  Send  thine 
hand"  (Ps  cxliv :  7),  and  insist,  One  is  hypostatic  in 
its  very  self,  and  the  other  not  hypostatic  in  the 
least,  but  visibly  and  in  se  not  so,  is  trifling  with  hu- 
man thought.  "Went  not  mine  heart  with  thee?" 
says  the  prophet  (2  Ki.  v:  26).  A  book  thronged 
with  the  exuberance  of  the  East,  that  is  said  to  have 
a  clue,  in  its  figures,  by  which  they  separate  them- 
selves in  instances  like  these,  is  made  to  injure  itself 
with  the  wise.  Let  us  have  the  real  proot  for  what 
we  are  to  believe.  For  I  beg  an  eager  scrutiny  thus 
far,  that  I  may  not  leave  upon  the  field  anything 
valid,  but  may  keep  within  the  narrowing  line  every- 
thing that  can  be  gravely  introduced  to  support  the 
Trinity. 


3* 


58  TIlc   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

§  9.  The  Unity  of  God's  Person  not  Disturbed  by  Any 
Other  Differences. 

I  suppose  many  a  grave  man,  if  he  did  me  the 
honor  to  read  what  I  have  written,  would  settle 
back  upon  his  creed,  and  say,  This  is  trifling-,  after 
all.  All  this  may  be  honest ;  but  yet  it  has  the 
effect  of  a  trick. 

The  scheme  is  one  for  matching  Scriptures. 
Scriptures  being  found  that  uphold  the  Trinity,  they 
are  counterfeited ;  that  is,  like  ones  are  put  forward 
as  meaning  the  same  ;  and  as  neutralizing  all  the 
others.  There  is  a  ghastly  cousinhood  to  those  feats 
in  Egypt.  Aaron  came  forward,  in  the  majesty  of 
truth,  and,  the  magicians,  they  also  did  likewise  with 
their  enchantments  ;  for  they  also  cast  down  their 
rods,  and  they  also  became  serpents.  I  feel  uneasy, 
myself,  in  every  word  I  set  forth.  And  when  I  hear 
Paul  casting  this  old  account  into  a  form  of  general 
apostacy,  and  hear  him  say,  **  As  Jannes  and  Jam- 
bres  withstood  Moses,  so  do  these  resist  the  truth," 
I  wince  under  the  picture.  For  this  is  indeed  my 
very  method.  My  challenge  is,  Bring  on  your  sen- 
tences, and  I  will  match  them.  And  this  springs 
from  a  persuasion  that  it  can  be  done.  All  my  study 
of  the  texts  leads  me  to  believe,  that  there  is  not  one 
that  usually  supports  the  Trinity,  that  cannot  be 
matched  by  another ;  and  that  the  Father  and  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be  presented  in  any 
form  in  the  Bible,  that  cannot  be  matched  by  some 
other  form  :  the  form,  seeming  to  imply  a  Trinity, 
having  the  implication  taken  out  of  it  thus, — that 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  59 

(always  reserving  the  peculiarities  of  the  Son)  the 
Father,  the  Word  and  the  Holy  Spirit  can  always 
be  expounded  by  the  light  of  other  passages,  where 
the  conjunction  is  similar,  but  where  the  Lord  of 
hosts  and  the  Mighty  One  and  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  or  like  groups,  cannot  be  considered  in  any 
triune  relation. 

There  is  nothing,  therefore,  but  to  advance. 

Grammatic  case,  grammatic  gender,  grammatic 
person,  grammatic  number,  and  all  grammatic  differ- 
ences, have  been  appealed  to.  Now  let  us  have 
everything  else.  What  are  the  special  forms  of 
proof  on  which  the  ages  could  have  built  so  great  a 
doctrine? 

I.  It  may  be  said,  The  Holy  Ghost  stands  out  so 
as  an  agent !  Personification  may  answer  in  poetic 
writing  :  but  in  the  most  lengthened  prose,  and  in  so 
many  and  such  varied  portions  of  revelation,  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  talked  of  as  so  strictly  a  person,  that 
the  style  of  the  thing,  rather  than  any  distinctive 
case,  betokens  the  cause  of  the  belief  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

But  be  careful  !  Who  is  denying  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  a  person  ?  That  may  be  a  good  argument 
against  the  Arian,  and  against  similar  mistake.  Our 
very  claim  is,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  Person  ;  and 
that  he  is  only  One  Person.  Our  doctrine  is,  that 
the  Spirit  is  God.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  spake  (Acts  xiii  :  2),  or  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  on  them  (Acts  xix:  6),  or  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  did  any  act  or  work  (Acts  x :  44  ;  xvi  : 
6;    XX  :  28  ;  Rom.  v:  5),  we  do  not  object,  in   the 


6o  TJie   Trinity  and  Scriptitre. 

least.  What  does  it  prove?  It  proves  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a  person.  We  claim  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  a  person  ;  and  we  aver,  that  not  one  of 
these  passages  shows  that  he  is  any  separate  person 
from  the  Word  or  the  Father. 

2.  The  same  is  our  conclusion  from  his  being-  an 
object  of  worship  (Is.  vi  :  3,9;  cf.  Acts  xxviii :  25). 
We  are  right  in  riveting  the  proof.  If  any  man  has 
it,  let  him  produce  it.  We  are  reasonable  in  tracing 
the  evidence  along.  And  if  we  say,  This  is  not  evi- 
dence ;  and  this  is  not  evidence  ;  nor  this, — we  are, 
in  method,  right.  Nay,  we  are  doing  a  favor  to  the 
truth,  if  we  cut  off  meaningless  appeals,  and  bind  the 
Trinity  down  to  its  actual  demonstrations. 

3.  But  it  may  be  said.  Whole  passages  are  de- 
monstrative of  what  we  are  seeking.  It  may  not  do 
to  quote,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  spake"  (Acts  xxviii: 
25),  and  then  say,  that,  by  the  force  of  that  one  ex- 
pression, there  is  some  other  Person  than  the  Father; 
or  that,  because  that  Person  is  worshipped  (Jo.  iv : 
24),  and  prayed  to  (Ez.  xxxvii :  9), — that  therefore 
he  is  a  distinct  hypostatic  divinity;  but  when  a 
whole  narrative  occurs  ;  as,  for  example,  like  this, 
*'  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto 
you  ;  but,  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you  :  and 
when  he  is  come  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin  and 
of  righteousness  and  of  judgment :"  or,  when  we 
read,  *'  And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the 
Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him  ;  but  whosoever 
speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  for- 
given him"  (Matt,  xii :  32)  :  or,  when  we  read,  that 
certain  worshippers  did   not  so  much  as  know  that 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  6 1 

there  was  a  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  xix :  2),  there  is  a  cast 
about  this  that  should  operate  differently  from  any 
isolated  text,  and  a  persistence  of  using  a  name,  that 
seems  to  imply  a  more  than  mere  rhetoric  for  the 
Almighty. 

But  why  ? 

Let  me  press  the  point  just  there. 

Solomon  breaks  out  in  the  most  remarkable  per- 
sonification of  wisdom.  He  follows  it,  chapter  after 
chapter.  He  harps  upon  it  ;  till  we  should  suppose 
he  had  worn  out  the  figure,  if  persistence  is  any  sign 
that  that  could  be  done.  The  Spirit  is  nothing,  in 
elaborate  drapery,  to  the  personification  of  wisdom. 
I  beg  a  close  inspection  of  the  comparison  involved. 
Wisdom  ;  which  has  not  an  advantage  like  the  Spirit ; 
because  it  is  not  really  a  personal  Deity, — neverthe- 
less builds  houses,  and  shelters  guests  (Prov.  ix:  i). 
It  actually  builds  for  the  Almighty  (Prov.  viii :  27,  30) ; 
and  props  kings  upon  their  thrones  (v.  16).  And  if 
any  one  says,  Yes,  because  it  is  a  Person,  I  hail  that 
as  confirming  my  demonstration.  Wise  persons 
believe  that  it  is  not  a  person  ;  and  if  the  prosopop(£ia 
is  piled  so  high  that  it  seems  so,  it  is  all  the  better 
argument.  If  Paul  talks  so  of  Sin  (Rom.  vii :  13), 
that  she  seems  like  Milton's  Goblin,  scaly  and  venom- 
ous before  us,  I  think,  with  the  superior  advantage 
that  the  Comforter  is  really  a  Person,  we  can  be  spared 
from  admitting,  from  the  text,  that  it  need  be  a  Per- 
son separate  and  distinct  from  the  Father. 

But  it  may  be  said,  That  strange  expression, — ■ 
They  did  not  so  much  as  know  that  there  was  a  Holy 
Ghost  !  (Acts  xix :  2).     Well ;  let  us  took  at    that. 


62  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

Will  the  Trinitarian  really  admit  that  they  did  not 
know  that  there  was  such  a  Person  ?  If  he  does,  then 
the  world-wide  doctrine,  such  as  he  believes  the 
Trinity  to  be,  was  not  known  to  the  Jews  of  Ephesus. 
That  is  unreasonable  enough.  But  then,  another 
consequence.  There  could  not  have  been  a  Holy 
Ghost.  There  could  not  have  been  one,  because 
there  was  none  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour:  and  an 
eternal  Spirit  must  have  existed  always.  And  there 
was  none  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour,  because  we  are 
distinctly  told,  that  "  there  was  no  Holy  Spirit  yet,^ 
because  that  Christ  was  not  yet  glorified"  (Jo.  vii : 
39).  We  have  got,  therefore,  to  retrace  our  steps ; 
for  this,  of  course,  no  man  will  endure. 

What  then  is  the  meaning  ? 

We  have  already  explained,  that  Spirit  is  often 
subjective.  Indeed,  we  have  shown  that  it  is  more 
and  more  subjective  ;  until  it  settles,  at  last,  to  be  no 
more  than  conscience.  When,  therefore,  John  said, 
that  there  was  not  yet  any  Spirit  (Jo.  vii:  39),  he 
meant,  undoubtedly,  the  great  promised  work  of  the 
Spirit.  And  when  the  Ephesians  said,  that  they  did 
not  so  much  as  know  that  there  was  a  Spirit,  they 
meant  his  promised  work  (Acts  xix  :  2).  They,  no 
doubt,  had  fruit  of  the  Spirit  ;  but  they  were  speak- 
ing comparatively,  just  as  when  Paul  said,  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize  (i  Cor.  i :  17).  So  that  the  whole 
meaning  was,  that  the  great  Pentecostal  blessing  had 
not  dawned  upon  their  minds. 

But  here  now  a  very  strong  argument !     Why  use 

*  "Given  "  (E.  V.),  as  will  be  seen,  is  in  Italics.     The  Greek,  as 
to  the  point  involved,  is,  in  each  case,  precisely  similar. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  63 

such  language  ?  If  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost  separate 
and  distinct  from  the  Father,  and  such  a  hypostatic 
Personage  was  a  great  reality  of  the  gospel,  John 
would  have  been  very  shy  of  using  such  language. 
Such  slight  considerations  have  often  the  force  of 
demonstration.  If  God  were  not  in  Persons,  but 
were  simple ;  if  he  were  not  hypostasized  literally, 
but  were  Spirit  or  Word  rhetorically,  or  as  the  case 
may  be,  the  pen  would  not  hesitate  to  write,  "  There 
was  as  yet  no  Holy  Ghost"  :  but  if  the  Trinity  is  true, 
it  would  seem  unreasonable  and  wrong,  and,  in  fact, 
rhetorically  impossible,  to  write  in  one  of  our  theolo- 
gies, for  example,  that  there  was  at  any  given  time 
no  Holy  Ghost. 

In  respect  to  the  unpardonable  sin — what  is  it? 
If  the  Son  of  Man  appear  as  an  outward  revelation  ; 
and  if  the  Holy  Ghost  be  felt  as  an  inward  influence, 
— I  can  understand  the  sentence  at  once.  If  any  one 
speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  he  merely  denies 
a  doctrine,  or  is  found  denouncing  God  as  outwardly 
revealed.  But  if  any  man  speak  a  word  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  implication  is,  that  he  is  resisting 
inwardly  ;  that  is,  that  he  is  doing  violence  to  con- 
science ;  that  is,  that  he  is  trampling  the  Spirit  of 
grace,  which  is  God  at  work  upon  his  mind. 

The  passage,  therefore,  is  adverse  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  If  God  be  in  three  persons,  the  speak- 
ing a  word  against  Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost  would 
seem  equally  offensive.  Indeed,  a  speaking  against 
the  Father  would  seem  to  be  the  most  bold.  Each 
would  have  its  point  of  heinousness.  The  Father,  as 
the  great  King  and  Judge  ;  the  Son,  as  having  taber- 
22 


64  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

nacled  in  clay,  and  as  having  been  the  price-affording 
strength  of  the  obedience  and  the  ransom  ;  or  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  our  Sanctifier,  would  be  each  most 
reverend  and  great ;  and  that  would  be  a  useless 
mystery  that  would  seem  to  erect  the  one  over  the 
other.  But  explain  the  whole  as  I  have  said,  and 
mystery  vanishes.  Jesus  Christ  can  be  looked  at  in 
his  humanity.  Jesus  Christ,  in  his  humanity,  was  an 
outward  thing,  and  could  be  looked  at  like  the  Bible. 
Jesus  Christ,  like  the  Bible,  could  be  rejected  by  a 
profound  mistake.  But  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  Spirit  ; 
or,  as  we  could  then  expound  it,  the  Father  in  the 
Spirit ;  or,  to  speak  still  less  figuratively,  the  Great 
God  operating  as  a  holy  breath, — is  a  Monitor  inside 
the  heart.  It  is  a  monition  that  has  gained  access  to 
the  spirit.  It  is  a  conviction  that  has  passed  out  of 
the  category  of  mistake,  and  become  inwrought  in 
the  soul.  Then  to  quench  it,  is  insolent  wrong.  And 
hence  the  intimation,  that,  whereas  the  susceptibili- 
ties of  life  can  be  so  worn  away,  that,  according  to 
the  rules  of  grace,  a  man  is  past  feeling  (Eph.  iv  :  19), 
so  this  process  may  be  hastened,  and  a  violence  to 
the  inward  light  sovereignly  poured  down,  may  grieve 
the  Almighty  to  depart,  and  may  finish,  at  a  stroke, 
the  possibilities  of  salvation. 

Glance,  therefore,  at  the  argument.  We  are  not 
denying  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  ;  nor  his  di- 
vinity ;  nor  a  meaning  in  the  name.  We  pray  for 
the  Holy  Ghost.  We  depend  upon  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  without  this  blessed  Monitor,  we  are  lost  for- 
ever. His  work  is  a  work  of  the  new  birth,  sanctifi- 
cation  and  calling  into  life.     All  this  we  delight  in. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  65 

We  only  say,  It  is  God  thus  beautifully  described. 
When  he  descended  in  cloven  tongues,  of  course  no- 
body believes  that  God  was  a  fire.  When  he  dwelt 
as  a  Shekinah,  he  was  not  the  luminiferous  ether. 
When  he  descended  on  Christ,  he  was  only  in  the 
form  of  a  dove.  And,  so,  I  carry  what  is  spectacular 
to  a  still  higher  degree.  I  hold  the  Holy  Breath  to 
be  only  God  (2  Cor.  iii :  17).  When  I  pray  that  it  be 
poured  out,  I  pray  for  God.  When  waiting  for  its 
coming,  I  wait  for  the  Almighty:  and  for  all- 
abounding  reason  ;  for,  as  we  have  carefully  seen, 
gender  and  number  and  case  have  all  been  appealed 
to,  and  every  opportunity  has  been  given  for  each 
imaginable  trace,  and  no  footstep  has  been  seen  of  a 
divided  Deity. 

4.  One  thing  yet  remains,  and  that  is  the  testi- 
mony of  believers.  I  value  this.  In  vital  matters 
the  testimony  of  believers  is  unquestionably  infalli- 
ble. But  that  is  the  very  question.  Is  this  a  vital 
matter? 

**  The  people  of  God  have  always  regarded  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  person.  They  have  looked  to  him 
for  instruction,  sanctification,  direction  and  comfort. 
This  is  part  of  their  religion.  Christianity  (subjec- 
tively considered)  would  not  be  what  it  is  without 
this  sense  of  dependence  on  the  Spirit,  and  this  love 
and  reverence  for  his  person.  All  the  liturgies, 
prayers  and  praises  of  the  Church  are  filled  with 
appeals  and  addresses  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  a 
fact  which  admits  of  no  rational  solution,  if  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  really  teach  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct 
person.     The  rule,  Quod  semper ,  quod  ubique,  quod  ab 


66  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

omnibus,  is  held  by  Protestants  as  well  as  by  Roman- 
ists. It  is  not  to  the  authority  of  general  consent  as 
an  evidence  of  truth  that  Protestants  object,  but  to 
the  application  made  of  it  by  the  Papal  Church,  and 
to  the  principle  on  which  that  authority  is  made  to 
rest.  All  Protestants  admit  that  true  believers  in 
every  age  and  country  have  one  faith,  as  well  as  one 
Lord  and  God"  (Dr.  Hodge's  Sys.  Theol.  I.  p.  526). 

Notice  the  errors.  First,  faith  in  a  Trinity  has 
not  been  positively  universal.  Dr.  Hodge  would 
hardly  deny  the  quality  of  faith  to  all  Monarchians, 
or  even  to  all  Arian  professors.  Second,  universal 
belief  does  not  prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine ;  but  it 
only  proves  it  in  case  it  is  vital.  Third,  universal  be- 
lief does  not  prove  a  faith  vital.  Witness  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Mass,  which  has  been  universal  in  some 
ages,  and  is  preponderant  in  this.  The  belief  that 
it  is  vital  does  not  make  it  vital,  any  more  than  it 
makes  Jacobitism  vital,  or  the  right  to  persecute. 
And,  therefore,  fourth,  the  great  flaw  in  this  argu- 
ment is,  that  it  does  not  settle  whether  the  doctrine 
is  vital.  If  it  is,  I  grant  the  Church  has  it;  for  if 
the  doctrine  is  vital,  it  is  only  tantamount  to  owning 
that  there  is  always  a  living  church.  But  that  it  is 
vital  because  the  church  has  it,  I  utterly  deny ;  for 
the  church  has  had  masses,  and  auto-da-fes,  and  all 
sorts  of  barnacles,  that  have  grown  upon  it  as  a  pen- 
alty of  iniquity. 

There  is   no  proof,  therefore,  thus  far,  that  God 
exists  hypostatically  separated. 

But,  now,  there  is  proof  very  positively  the  other 
way. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost,  6y 

%  10.  No  Distinct  Personality  of  the  Spirit. 

Of  course,  theologians  will  not  expect  me  to  find 
expressions  declaring,  polemically,  that  there  is  no 
Holy  Ghost.  And  the  reason  why  not,  will  be  al- 
together understood,  when  I  declare,  that  there  was 
no  such  doctrine.  The  East  had  no  such  polemic. 
The  nearest  we  come  to  it  is  in  the  first  texts  of 
John,  which,  as  we  have  already  shown,  were  against 
the  errors  of  the  Platonists  (Irenseus  iii :  ii).  And, 
perhaps,  prophetically,  Christ  had  some  inkling  of 
the  kind,  when,  after  more  than  usual  hypostatic  ex- 
pressions about  the  Spirit,  he  says,  ''  The  time  will 
come,  when  I  will  no  more  speak  unto  you  in  Pro- 
verbs, BUT  WILL  SHOW  YOU  PLAINLY  OF  THE  FA- 
THER." In  the  main,  therefore,  we  cannot  hunt  up 
positive  denials  ;  because  our  plea  is,  that  the  Bible 
is  colorless  of  the  Trinity;  and,  therefore,  we  cannot 
array  it  either  for  it  or  against  it. 

But,  incidentally^  there  are  singular  proofs. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  care  at  all  about 
the  names  of  the  Almighty.  If  there  were  a  Trinity, 
there  would  be  some  precision  that  exegetes  had 
reached.  Jehovists  would  have  gained  the  day,  or 
Malachists,  sifters-out  of  the  meaning  of  the  ''  Angel." 
The  scene  in  Isaiah  (Chap.  6)  is  applied  to  Father 
(v.  i).  Son  (Jo.  xii:  41),  and  Spirit  (Actsxxviii :  25), 
with  no  possible  order.  We  appeal  to  every  princi- 
ple of  frankness,  whether  the  scheme  that  makes 
these  names  rhetorical,^  and  makes  them  all  descrip- 

*  Excepting  always  the  Son. 


68  The  Trinity  mid  Scripture, 

tive,  does  not  apply  to  the  confusion  of  their  use, 
more  happily  than  to  distinct  hypostases. 

2.  Second,  the  confusion  of  powers  !  God  is  said 
to  create  (Gen.  i :  i)  ;  and  Christ  is  said  to  create 
(Heb.  i  :  lo)  ;  and  so  the  Spirit  (Ps.  civ  :  30).  They 
all  garnish  the  heavens,  and  work  the  works  of  the 
Great  Builder,  promiscuously  together  (Jo.  v:  17). 
And  this  has  been  urged  to  prove  that  they  are  but 
"  One  Substance."  But  does  it  not  go  further,  and 
hint  that  they  are  but  One  Person  ?  Are  they  not, 
like  the  mason's  tie,  binding  the  wall,  and  bringing 
back  these  garnishings  of  speech  to  what  our  Saviour 
calls,  a  telling  plainly  of  the  Father  ? 

3.  Then  we  have  the  confusion  of  the  Persons. 
We  have  the  direct  declaration,  "  Spirit  is  God"  (Jo. 
iv  :  24).  Paul  declares  to  us,  "  Now  the  Lord  is  that 
Spirit"  (2  Cor.  iii :  17).*  In  Matthew  we  are  told,  I 
cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God  (Matt,  xii :  28), 
and,  in  Luke,  I  cast  out  devils  by  his  finger  (Lu.  xi : 
20).  We  hear  "  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power"  (i  Cor. 
ii :  4).  We  hear,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee"(Lu.  i:  35).    ''Whither   shall    I    go  from  thy 

*  We  ask  special  examination  for  two  texts,  one  in  John,  and  the 
other  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  The  one  in  John  is  translated, 
"  For  God  giveth  not  the  spirit  by  measure"  (Jo.  iii :  34,  E.  V.).  Why 
not  translate  it,  "  For  God,  the  Spirit,  giveth  not  by  measure"  ?  The 
other  passage  reads,  "  Which  worship  God  in  the  spirit"  (Phil,  iii :  3, 
E.  v.).  Why  not  translate  that,  "  Which  worship  the  Spirit  God"  t 
or,  as  the  Greek  is  contested,  and  the  reading,  theou,  is  believed  to  be 
correct,  why  not  discard  Meyer's  rendering,  "  Who  worship  in  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  and  fix  on  the  more  natural  translation,  "  Who  wor- 
ship the  Spirit  of  God"?  The  whole  pneumatology  of  the  Bible  is 
worth  a  careful  revision. 


God  iJic  Holy  Ghost.  69 

Spirit?  or  whither  shall  I  flee  from  thy  presence"  ? 
and  Clement  goes  on  with  this  passage,  '*  If  I  ascend 
into  heaven,  thou  art  there  ;  if  I  go  away  even  to  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  there  is  thy  right  hand  ; 
if  I  make  my  bed  in  the  abyss,  there  is  thy  Spirit" 
(Chap.  28).  The  very  Fathers  seem  not  to  have 
traced  a  Trinity.  We  hear  ihem  say,  "  The  Word  is 
the  Spirit."*  Hermas  says,  *'  I  wish  to  explain  to  you 
what  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  spake  with  you  in  the  form 
of  the  church,  showed  you  ;  for  that  Spirit  is  the  Son 
of  God"  {Pastor  of  Hennas  ;  Clark's  Ed.  p.  404).  The 
Targumist  renders  Zach.  vii :  12,  "■  by  his  Word,"  in- 
stead of,  **  by  his  Spirit."  And  Hermas  takes  up  the 
emblems  at  will,  "  No  one  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God,  unless  he  receive  his  holy  name  .  .  . 
Whosoever  shall  not  receive  his  lips,  shall  not  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God"  (p.  416).  We  can  multiply 
into  any  multitude  these  ignoring  revelations.  "  In 
the  Scriptures  themselves  the  same  work  is  often 
ascribed  to  God  and  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  led 
some,  at  times,  to  assume  that  these  terms  expressed 
one  and  the  same  thing ;  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  is  the 
man  himself.  In  the  Scriptures,  also,  the  terms  Word 
and  Breath  (or  Spirit)  are  often  interchanged ;  and 
what  in  one  place  is  said  to  be  done  by  the  Word,  in 
another  is  said  to  be  done  by  the  Spirit.  The  Logos 
is  represented  as  the  life  of  the  world,  and  the  source 
of  all  knowledge ;  and,  yet,  the  same  is  said  of  the 
Spirit.     Paul  declares,  in  one  place  (Gal.  i :   12),  that 

*  No  one  can  examine  Lightfoot,  Vol.  II,  p.  520,  without  seeing 
that  those  attributes  that  are  ascribed  by  the  Targumists  to  the  Word, 
are  precisely  those  specifically  belonging  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 


70  The   Trinity  a?id  Scripture. 

he  received  the  doctrines  which  he  taught  by  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ;  in  another  (i  Cor.  ii  :  lo), 
that  he  was  taught  by  the  Spirit.  Misled  by  such 
interpretations"  [as  Dr.  Hodge  thinks],  "  some  of  the 
Fathers  identified  the  Son  and  the  Spirit.  Even  Ter- 
tuUian,  in  one  place,  says,  *  Spiritus  substantia  est  Ser- 
inonis,  et  Sermo  operatio  Spiritus,  et  duo  ununi  sunt"  ""^ 
(Hodge,  Theol.  I.  p.  533). 

Let  us  quote  other  Scriptures.  Job  says,  *'  By 
his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens ;  his  hand 
hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent"  (Job  xxvi :  13). 
The  Psalmist  says,  **  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were 
the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the 
Spirit  (breath,  E.V.)  of  his  mouth"(Ps.  xxxiii :  6).  We 
are  told  of  miracles  by  his  finger  (Lu.  xi :  20),  by  his 
Spirit  (Matt,  xii :  28),  and  then,  traversing  both,  of 
"  miracles  and  wonders  which  God  did  by  him,"  that 
is,  by  Christ  (Acts  ii :  22).  We  hear  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  as  tantamount  to,  and  illustrated  by,  the  spirit 
of  man  (i  Cor.  ii :  11).  We  are  wearying  the  reader. 
Our  argument  will  be  understood.  It  is  not  that  the 
Trinity  is  guarded  against  in  Scripture  :  the  fact  that 
it  is  in  no  way  mentioned,  is  our  most  important 
proof:  but  now, — with  this  subsidiary  consideration, 
that,  if  the  Trinity  had  been  intended  to  be  revealed, 
it  would  never  be  traversed  and  cut  to  pieces  by  in- 
congruous appellations. 

4.  Fourthly  ;  the  offices  of  the  Persons  are  con- 
fused.    The   Father  would    seem   preeminently  the 

*  Adversus  Praxeai7i,  15,  Works,  edit.  Basle,  1562,  p.  426  ["  The 
Spirit  is  the  substance  of  the  Word,  and  the  Word  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit ;   and  the  two  are  one  thing"]. 


God  the  Holy  Ghost.  yi 

Person  who  elects  us  into  life  ;  and  yet  the  Son 
says,  *'  Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen 
you"  (Jo.  XV :  i6).  Kindred  things  are  said  of  the 
Spirit  (Eph.  i  :  13  ;  iv  :  30).  The  great  work  of  re- 
demption is  by  Christ  ;  and  yet  the  Father,  in  actual 
prophecies  of  the  Son,  calls  himself  the  "  Redeemer  ;" 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  preeminently  the  Sanctifier, 
does  not  monopolize  that  title  in  the  least,  but  shares 
it,  whenever  it  is  rhetorically  fit,  with  the  Father, 
and  with  the  God  Incarnate  (Jude  i,  Eph.  v:  26). 
We  shall  recur  to  this  indifferency  of  title  under  an- 
other head  (i  Chap,  iii :  §  13  ei  at).  But,  in  the 
meanwhile,  like  the  lines  of  the  spectroscope,  the  evi- 
dence may  seem  slight,  but  it  is  determinate.  It  is 
impossible  for  one  moment  to  suppose  that  God 
was  eternally  three,  and  that  that  threeness  was  so 
original  and  of  course  as  to  have  penetrated  into 
human  consciousness :  it  is  impossible  that,  as  Dr. 
Hodge  declares,  "  it  underlies  the  whole  plan  of  sal- 
vation, and  determines  the  character  of  the  religion 
(in  the  subjective  sense  of  that  word)  of  all  true 
Christians:  "  that  "it  is  the  unconscious  (sic)  or  un- 
formed faith  even  of  those  of  God's  people  who  are 
unable  to  understand  the  term  by  which  it  is  ex- 
pressed :"  that  they  "  believe  in  God  the  Creator  and 
Preserver,  .  .  .  and,  therefore,  of  necessity,  in 
a  divine  Redeemer,  and  a  divine  Sanctifier  ;"  and 
that  they  should  "  have  the  factors  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  in  their  religious  convictions"^  :    (Dr. 

*  "  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  with  Meyer  {Lehre  von  der  Triniicit,  \. 
p  42),  that  '  the  Trinity  is  the  point  in  which  all  Christian  ideas  and 
interests  unite  ;  at  once  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  all  insight  into 
Christianity  ' "  (Hodge,  Theol.  i :  p.  443). 


72  The   Trmity  and  Scripture. 

Hodge's  Theol.  I :  p.  443) :  I  say  it  is  utterly  impos- 
sible to  dream  of  such  a  thing, — if  the  Word  of  God, 
which  I  suppose  Dr.  Hodge,  in  spite  of  our  "■  con- 
sciousness," will  still  admit  must  be  the  source  of  the 
doctrine,  is  so  utterly  careless  to  keep  the  great  terms 
of  the  doctrine,  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Sanctifier,  at 
all  apart,  and  that  in  the  most  critical  revelations. 

CHAPTER  III. 

God  the  Son. 

§  I .  The  Deify  of  the  Son, 

Beginning  on  the  plan  that  we  have  laid  down, 
we  seize  first,  as  a  fact  in  which  we  are  all  agreed, 
upon  the  Deity  of  our  Redeemer.  Nobody  doubts 
it.  The  Trinitarian  believes  that  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  God  is  present  in  Christ  ;  and  we  believe, 
precisely  in  the  same  language.  Nobody,  at  all  en- 
gaged in  this  polemic,  is  concerned  about  the  Deity 
of  Christ  ;  for  that  is  settled.  The  question  is,  Is 
the  Deity  in  Christ  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trin- 
ity, or  the  One  Personal  Jehovah  ;  the  degree  and 
measure  of  his  divinity,  if  there  could  be  any  con- 
ceivable difference,  being  rather  against  the  Trinita- 
rian :  for  the  Trinitarian  believes  in  but  one  of  three 
Persons  as  in  Christ,  Vv-hereas  we  believe  in  the  Sole 
Person  of  the  Almighty  as  present  in  our  Great  Re- 
deemer. 

§  2.    The  Humanity  of  the  Son. 

So  of  the  humanity.  The  Trinitarian  believes 
that  there  is  one  body  and  one  soul,  and  that  these 


God  the  Son.  73 

in  nature  are  distinct  from  the  Godhead.  lie  beheves 
in  a  finite  body  and  in  a  finite  reason  ;  and,  thou^^h 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  crude  thinking  about  Emman- 
uel, yet,  when  put  to  his  proofs,  he  believes  that  this 
finiteness  remains,  and  that,  this  moment  in  heaven, 
there  is  a  soul,  one  with  the  Deity,  which  is  ignorant, 
— that  is  to  say,  unspeakably  wise  in  comparison  with 
what  it  was  on  earth  (Phil,  ii :  9),  but  still  a  soul ;  for 
the  Trinitarian  believes  that  Christ  is  "  very  man"  as 
well  as  "  very  God"  :  and,  therefore,  that  the  man 
should  become  God  transmutedly,  so  that  the  facul- 
ties of  the  man  should  become  the  faculties  of  the 
Almighty,  our  brethren  would  be  just  as  averse 
from  as  we  are,  and  from  the  same  articulate  rea- 
soning. 

The  humanity,  therefore,  is  at  rest  between  us. 

§  3.    The  Begetting  of  the  Son. 

The  begetting  of  the  Son  is  more  agreed  in  than 
we  would  at  first  imagine. 

It  is  true  that  we  are  coming,  here,  to  the  most 
violent  differences. 

But  the  begetting  of  the  Son,  in  one  distinct  form 
of  it,  we  would  describe  alike. 

If  I  were  to  quote  the  passage,  "  Thou  art  my  Son  ; 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (Ps.  ii :  7),  there  are 
very  few  people  that  would  say,  with  some,  "  Thou 
art  my  Son  ;  this  day  art  thou  my  Son"  (Hodge, 
Theol.  Vol.  I.  p.  475),  as  though  it  were  a  mere  assev- 
erance  that  thou  art  my  Son  at  any  and  every  period. 
Nor  are  there  many  that  would  say  with  others. 
Thou  art  my  Son  ;  I  am  he  that  have  begotten  thee. 
4 


74  'J-^^''^   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

(J.  A.  Alexander,  Acts  xiii :  33).  These  strained 
overcomings  of  the  meaning  are  offensive  to  the  most. 
But  most  exegetes,  in  good  Saxon  way,  will  admit 
that  it  refers  to  a  temporal  begetting  ;  and  will  resort 
to  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Hodge,  that  there  may  be 
two  begettings  (Theol.  Vol.  I.  p.  474).  This,  as  will 
be  seen,  will  analyze  our  subject.  We  will  take  the 
second  begetting  as  a  thing  in  which  we  are  all  agreed, 
and  get  that  fixed  first.  And  then  we  will  go  to  the 
first,  and,  having  stripped  away  all  the  passages  that 
belong  to  the  second,  we  will  press  the  argument,  that 
there  are  no  such  passages  to  substantiate  the  first 
as  are  worthy  of  the  least  consideration. 

And,  in  regard  to  the  second,  Gabriel  gives  the 
best  account  of  it.  *'  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over- 
shadow thee  ;  therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing  which 
shall  be  begotten,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God" 
(Lu.  i :  35).  This  testimony  might  seem  to  be  con- 
fused in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xiii  :  32,  33),  where 
this  begetting  is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  Christ's 
being  "  raised  up  again"  (E.  V.) ;  but  Dr.  Hodge 
agrees  that ''  again"  is  an  interpolation  (p.  475).  The 
Greek  means  that  Jesus  was  ''  raised  up."  We  be- 
lieve that  that  means  more  than  a  mere  birth.'-  But 
Dr.  Hodge's  interpretation  is  enough  for  our  present 
argument.  He  concedes  that  the  birth  may  be  al- 
luded to  in  the  expression,  '*  this  day."  And,  now, 
as  the  expression  occurs  four  times  in  the  Bible  (Ps. 
ii :  7  ;  Acts  xiii:  33  ;  Heb.  i  :  5  ;  v :  5),  we  have  that 
much   attained  at  least:  Trinitarians  confess   that, 

*  See  the  Treatise,  "  Was  Christ  in  Adam"  f 


God  the  Son.  75 

"  This  day  I  have  begotten  thee,"  may  refer  to  the 
birth  of  the  Redeemer. 

But  they  say,  There  was  another  birth,  also ;  and 
that  eternally  of  God.  Now  we  desire  the  passages. 
It  speaks  of  the  first  begotten  of  the  Father.  But, 
of  course,  that  we  hold  ourselves.  That  was  the 
child  begotten  of  Mary's  womb.  There  was  no  son 
like  that  Son.  All  other  sons  were  shadows ;  and 
therefore  the  expression,  ''  The  only  begotten  Son 
of  God." 

Moreover,  ''  in  (by,  E.  V.)  him  were  all  things 
created"  (Col.  i  :  16).  We  are  to  come  to  that  here- 
after (§  11).  When  he  was  born,  all  things  were 
born.  That  is,  the  shape  of  the  universe  so  hung 
upon  him,  that  not  only  did  the  Divinity  that  was  in 
him  make  the  universe,  but  it  was  made  *'  in  refer- 
ence to  him"  {eisy  Col.  i:  16),  as  well  as  "by  him." 
And,  therefore,  we  are  told  that  "  in  him  all  things 
stood  together"  (v.  17).  Christ  was  not  born  as  soon 
as  the  universe  was  born  *'  in"  him  :  that  is,  the 
whole  plan  of  it  took  color  from  his  advent.  All  the 
pardons  of  it  were  built  upon  him.  All  the  govern- 
ment of  it  was  to  be  laid  upon  him.  The  central 
kingdom  of  it  was  to  be  man's  commonwealth  (Heb. 
ii ;  8).  And,  therefore,  it  was  eminently  true,  that 
*'  in  him  were  all  things  created,"  and  that  he  was 
*'  the  first  born  of  every  creature." 

Under  this  head  of  "  begetting,"  let  the  Trinita- 
rian produce  his  arguments. 

If  he  says,  He  was  the  "■  first  begotten  of  the 
dead"  (Rev.  i :  5),  that  of  course  is  in  our  favor,  for 
an  eternal   begetting  did   not,  of  course,  bring  him 

2i 


^6  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

out  of  a  charnel-house  ;  and  that,  therefore,  helps 
our  view ;  for  it  obtrudes  another  passage,  confess- 
edly applied  to  time  ;  fixing  this  word  *'  begotten" 
in  connection  with  our  Redeemer. 

§  4.  TJie  Son  and  the  Spirit. 

And  while  we  are  on  the  subject  of  the  ''beget- 
ting," let  us  trace  the  connection  with  it  of  the 
Spirit. 

Listen  to  Gabriel :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee"  (Lu.  i:  35). 

Christians  are  said  to  be  begotten  of  the  Spirit 
(Jo  iii :  5). 

Now,  this  lowering  of  the  description  to  the  case 
of  man,  does  not  make  the  Trinitarian  averse  to  ap- 
plying it  to  the  Messiah. 

He  will  confess  that  the  "  TJieanthropos'  was  be- 
gotten of  the  Spirit. 

See,  now,  what  then  he  must  embrace :  first, 
that  there  was  a  true  body  ;  second,  that  there  was 
a  reasoning  soul  ;  third,  that  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost 
settling  upon  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  entering  the 
child  at  his  conception,  as  the  great  inspirer  of  his 
human  life  ;  fourth,  a  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity; 
and,  fifth,  a  plenary  God,  that  is,  both  Son  and 
Spirit,  possessing  the  plenary  Deity,  because  being 
**  the  same  in  substance  equal  in  power  and  glory." 

Now,  where  is  the  proof  of  all  this  ?  The  angel 
Gabriel  seemed  to  say  quite  the  opposite  ;  for  he 
stated  the  simple  fact,  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee."  Why  did  he  not  speak  of  the  Logos? 
Why  is  there  no  soup^on  of  a  Second  Person  ?     Why 


God  (he  Son.  yy 

did  he  exclude  the  Great  Mystery  ?  It  may  be  said, 
He  was  not  giving  all  the  facts.  Then  why  did  he 
profess  to?  He  said  in  the  most  oracular  way,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee;"  and  then,  fixing 
the  doctrine  for  all  time,  he  says,  ''Therefore — "and 
we  can  hardly  suppose  that  he  would  tell  a  part  of 
the  reality — "  Therefore,"  you  a  poor  Israelite,  and 
he  a  child  in  a  cradle  :  you  simply  overshadowed  by 
the  Spirit,  and  he  with  a  body  and  a  mere  rational 
humanity — "Therefore," — as  though,  on  a  brief  visit 
from  the  heavens,  and  on  the  brink  of  the  most  im- 
portant of  created  histories,  he  would  tell,  at  least, 
the  most  illustrious  reality  of  the  case, — "Therefore, 
that  holy  thing  that  shall  be  begotten,  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God." 

I  think,  therefore,  we  may  press  two  things,  and 
urge  a  friendly  answer ;  first,  why  was  he  to  be 
"called  the  Son  of  God,"  at  all,  for  any  event  in 
time,  and  not  rather  from  his  eternity's  begetting? 
and,  second,  why  was  he  "  called  the  Son"  for  the 
overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  rather  for 
the  entrance  of  the  SON,  there  being  by  that  earlier 
name  a  Second  Person  in  the  Divinity,  whose  actual 
entrance  into  the  man  would  be,  as  the  Trinitarian 
would  declare,  the  cause  for  his  being  the  Son  of  the 
Almighty? 

It  will  be  noticed  that  a  recoil  of  the  question, 
and  a  demand  how  we  get  over  the  difficulty,  would 
give  us  the  most  favorable  chance  for  explaining  the 
simplicity  of  our  system.  The  five  discordant  things 
give  us  no  confusion.  We  fold  them  up  like  a  tele- 
scope.    The  (i)  soul  and  the  (2)  body;  they  are  the 


78  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

man.  The  Trinitarians  will  agree  with  us  there. 
The  (3)  Spirit  and  the  (4)  Word  and  the  (5)  Deity  : 
they  are  the  God.  When  Gabriel  said,  "  The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,"  he  was  expounding 
the  nature  of  Emmanuel.  Did  I  believe  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  one  Person,  and  the  Word  another, 
and  a  Godhead  comprehensive  of  both,  1  would  be 
all  at  sea ;  but  beHeving  that  Gabriel  chose  for  his 
rhetoric  the  image  of  a  Breath,  and  brought  with  him 
the  title  of  a  Spirit  out  of  the  vocabulary  of  heaven, 
I  am  at  no  loss  at  all.  He  simply  meant,  God  shall 
come  upon  thee  ;  and  he  confirms  that  by  the  syno- 
nym, "  the  power  of  the  Highest  :"  and  we  have  no 
room  for  confusion  ;  for,  in  this  way,  he  was  announc- 
ing at  once,  God  as  tabernacling  with  clay. 

§  5.  The  Son  and  the  Father. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  our  blessed  Redeemer 
never  speaks  of  a  Son  as  tabernacling  with  him.  He 
never  speaks  of  a  Second  Person.  And,  if  that  is  con- 
sidered as  taking  advantage  of  a  something  which  is  in 
modern  speech,  he  never  speaks  of  anything  answer- 
ing to  that.  He  enters  into  long  metaphysics  in  re- 
spect to  his  person  (Jo.  Chaps,  v — xvii) ;  but  he  never 
dreams  of  a  hypostatic  subtilty.  He  always  speaks 
of  "  God, "or  "  his  Father."  This,  we  insist,  is  an 
enormous  evidence. 

Think  of  it. 

^       He  often  speaks  as  a  man, — "  I  thirst"  (Jo.  xix  : 

28),  or,  I  hunger  (Lu.  vi :  3),  and  he  often  speaks  in 

ways  which   can  only  be  understood   if  we   suppose 

him  as  separating  his  divinity  from  his  humanity  (Jo. 


God  the  Son.  79 

V  :  19,  30  ;  viii :  28).  In  these  views  he  speaks  of 
his  Father;  but  he  never  speaks  of— what  shall  I 
say  ?  There  is  no  Person  that  can  afford  us  a  name 
outside  of  the  One  Divinity.  All  this  is  inexpressi- 
bly unlikely.  Thirteen  chapters  in  the  heart  of  the 
Evangelist  (v — xvii)  discuss  the  Redeemer  in  the  most 
unexpected  ways.  He  says,  ''  I  and  my  Father  are 
one"  (Jo.  x:  30).  He  says, '' He  that  hath  seen 
me,  hath  seen  the  Father"  (Jo.  xiv :  9).  He  says, 
*'  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by 
the  Father"  (Jo.  vi :  57).  He  says,  The  Father 
dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him  (Jo.  xiv:   10  ;  xvii :  21). 

Now,  Trinitarians  agree  here.  They  cannot 
change  this  language.  They  are  reverent  people, 
and  would  not  desire  to.  And  they  have  a  meaning 
for  it ;  and  would  cheerfully  agree  that  it  expressed 
a  relation  with  the  Father.  But  will  they  go  further, 
according  to  our  plan  of  discussion,  and  we,  having 
ventured  where  we  agree,  will  they  venture  where 
we  differ,  and  explain  how  Christ  should  refer  every- 
thing to  the  Father,  and  that  in  critical  passages 
where  he  is  discussing  everything  that  belongs  to  his 
subsistence? 

"  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what 
he  seeth  the  Father  do"  (Jo.  v :  19).  "  As  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself;  so  hath  he  given  to  the 
Son  to  have  Hfe  in  himself"  (Jo.  v :  26).  ''  I  can  of 
mine  own  self  do  nothing"  (v.  30). 

Now,  our  distinct  argument  is,  not,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  God ;  for  we  hold  that  he  is,  in  common 
with  the  Trinitarians  ;  not,  that  he  can  do  nothing 
of  himself:  for  we  hold  that  he  can,  when  he  speaks 


8o  The   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

as  the  Most  High :  but  that,  when  he  is  speaking  in 
human  weakness,  and  that  when  he  is  saying  those 
things  that  account  for  his  subordination  in  the 
Deity,  such  chapters  about  himself  declare  three 
things,  first,  that  there  is  no  ante-Marian  Son,  or  he 
would  sometime  speak  of  him  ;  second,  that  there  is 
no  ante-Marian  hypostasis  of  any  sort,  or  it  would  be 
brought  into  the  philosophy  of  his  case  ;  and  third, 
that  there  is  no  Father ;  that  is  to  say,  that  there  is 
no  hypostatically  separated  parent,  different  from  the 
One  Almighty  (Jo.  xiv  :  9). 

§  6.    TJie  Son  as  Jehovah. 

Hence  he  is  called  Jehovah.  Isaiah  says,  I  have 
"seen  Jehovah"  (Is.  vi :  5);  and  John  says,  **  These 
things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  [Christ's]  glory, 
and  spake  of  him"  (Jo.  xii :  41). 

But  when,  under  the  enthusiasm  of  such  a  dis- 
covery, we  hunt  up  the  texts  that  will  make  it  more 
complete,  we  may,  for  a  time,  sail  in  very  tranquil 
seas,  Paul  confessing  *'  that  the  Lord  is  Jesus  Christ"* 
(Phil,  ii :  1 1),  and  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  quoting 
a  strong  Jehovistic  passage  (Heb.  i  :  10,  Ps.  cii) :  but 
hardly  have  we  settled  our  theory,  before  it  is  chopped 
into  by  all  sorts  of  cross  waves.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
the  Holy  Ghost  claims  the  name.  "  Well  spake  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias"  (Acts  xxviii :  25) ;  and  when 
we  trace  the  speaking,  it  is  that  spoken  by  Jehovah 
(Is.  vi),  and  that  which  John  claims  for  Christ  (Jo.  xii : 
41),  and  that  which,  in  this  way,  becomes  a  link  bind- 

*  The  English  translation  has  it  "  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord."' 


God  the  Son.  8 1 

ing  the  imagined  Persons  into  One,  rather  than  an 
authority  giving  an  hypostasis  to  any  one  of  them. 

Matters  grow  worse  as  we  read  more  generally. 
The  Jehovist  can  make  no  stand  at  all.  The  con- 
fusion becomes  complete,  as  we  study  more  deeply. 
And,  not  only  is  Jehovah  one  of  the  universal  names 
for  Heaven's  Majesty  :  but  more  than  that :  it  defies 
hypostatical  treatment :  and,  for  this  sharp  reason  ; 
■ — that  there  are  passages,  where  the  term  Jehovah  is 
employed,  where  it  is  applied  to  One  who  is  speaking 
at  the  very  time  of  his  Son,  our  Redeemer. 

I  think  I  am  making  myself  understood.  I  say 
that  Jehovah  cannot  be  a  name  of  Christ,  except  as 
Christ  is  our  One  God  and  Creator,  because  Jehovah 
is  a  name  for  One  who  actually  speaks  of  Christ  ;  as, 
for  example,  in  Isaiah, — "  Jehovah  said,  In  an  accep- 
table time  have  I  heard  thee"  (Is.  xlix  :  8) :  or  again, 
in  the  Psalms,  "  Jehovah  said  to  my  Lord"  (Ps.  ex  : 
I  ;  see  also  Ps.  ii  :  7).  That  cannot  be  an  hypostatic 
name  which  is  applied  to  the  Father  as  well  as  to  the 
Son.  And  as  it  is  applied  also  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Acts  xxviii  :  25),  it  becomes  a  mason's  tie  to  bind 
together  the  structures  of  rhetoric  which  the  antiqua- 
rian, man,  treats  with  hypostatical  separation. 

§  7.   The  Son  as  Sent. 

Passing  on  to  more  difficult  details,  it  may  be 
asked  now,  why  is  the  Son  spoken  of  as  sent  ?  If  he 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  if  his  separate  sub- 
sistence from  God  was  only  as  a  man,  then  all  those 
expressions  which  speak  of  him  as  "  coming"  (Eph. 
iv :  10),  and,  above  all,  those  which  speak  of  him  as 
4* 


82  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

on  a  mission  (Mai.  iii :   1-4),  or  as  being  "  sent"  (Jo. 
X :  36),  would  seem  rhetorically  unmanageable. 

This  has  been  an  argument  much  insisted  on. 
But  why  should  the  rhetoric  be  significant  when  the 
very  same  is  applied  to  John  ?  Jesus  Christ  himself 
says,  "  Scripture  cannot  go  for  nothing"  (Jo.  x:  35). 
We  insist,  therefore,  upon  a  meaning.  "  There  was 
a  man  sent  from  God  whose  name  was  John"  (Jo.  i : 
6).  Prophets  were  "sent"(Jer.  vii :  25).  In  fact, 
where  a  man's  whole  message  came  from  heaven,  it 
was  not  unnatural  to  speak  as  though  the  whole  per- 
son of  the  ambassador  descended  also.  In  Christ's 
instance,  all  that  gave  him  life  came  down  from 
heaven.  But  without  going  into  the  intricacies  of 
his  person,  it  is  enough  to  remark,  that,  if  he  could 
say  of  his  disciples,  "  As  thou  hast  sent  me  into  the 
world,  even  so  have  I  sent  them  into  the  world"  (Jo. 
xvii:  18),  it  cannot  be  much  of  an  argument  that 
makes  the  expression,  "  sent,"  or  the  corresponding 
rhetoric  for  his  advent,  stand  as  a  token  of  hypostases 
in  the  Almighty. 

§  8.   The  Son  as   Wisdom. 

Christ,  as  '^Wisdom,"  we  have  already  dealt  with 
(Chap.  II.  §  4).  And  yet  I  think  we  ought  to  go 
further.  The  fact  that  the  Redeemer  was  ever 
dreamed  of:  nay,  what  is  far  more  than  that,  the  fact 
that,  among  modern  commentators,  nine-tenths,  with- 
out a  shadow  of  a  relenting,  take  the  old  view;  that 
Solomon  should  be  directed  to  state,  Wisdom  is  right- 
eousness (Prov.  i :  2,  3),  and  yet  commentators  declare, 
No  ;  it  is  the  Redeemer ;  that  he  should  say,  "  Wis- 


God  the  Son.  83 

dom  is  the  principal  thing:  therefore  get  wisdom  : 
and  with  all  thy  gettings  get  understanding"  (Prov. 
iv :  7),  and  yet  trusted  scholars  declare,  Wisdom  is  a 
Divine  Hypostasis  (Glassius,  Calovius,  Bp.  Hall, 
Bridges,  Scott,  ct  aL)^  is  like  Cyril  saying  that  ArcJic"^' 
was  the  Father ;  or  like  Philo  saying  that  it  was  the 
Logos  ;  or  like  the  Valentinians  saying,  it  was  a  new 
hypostasis  (see  Irena^us,  Haer.  i:  8:5).  We  should 
not  be  content  simply  to  deride  it  ;  but  we  should  go 
further.  We  should  say,  Is  not  this  a  proof  that  the 
soul  tends  to  an  abuse  of  figures?  that  it  tends,  for 
example,  to  make  Divinity  of  a  wafer?  and  ought 
not  these  confessed  hallucinations  to  make  us  very 
wary  of  our  work,  when  we  are  turning  "  Word"  or 
"  Spirit"  into  hypostatic  Deities. 

§  9.  TJie  Son  and  the  Logos, 

This  query  comes  directly  into  place  when  we 
take  up,  as  we  intend  next  to  do,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  we  are  frank  to  admit, 
is  one  of  the  strong  points  of  the  Trinity. 

Would  it  not  be  fair,  first  of  all,  to  ask,  whether 
there  is  any  argument  for  it  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  ? 

The  hypostasis  of '' Wisdom,"  we  have  seen,  is 
well  nigh  universal.  And  "  Wisdom,"  under  the 
hand  of  a  master,  affords  a  most  tempting  chance  for 
it.  This  figure  stands  out  upon  the  canvas  with 
most  marvellous  life.  She  speaks  like  a  Deity.  "  I 
love  them  that  love  me."  And,  when  she  says,  "  I 
*  "  The  beginning  "  (Jo.  i :  i). 


84  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity,"  and  when  she  says, 
"  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused  ;"  or  when  she  says, 
**  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  you  :  I  will  make 
known  my  words  unto  you," — it  would  seem  easy,  if 
the  New  Testament  encouraged  the  idea,  to  make 
*'  Wisdom"  Christ,  and  sweep  all  this  beautiful  speech 
into  the  volume  of  the  gospel. 

But  when  we  are  shown,  by  proof,  that  Solomon 
is  meaning  piety,  I  think  we  should  allow  more  than 
all  this  drapery  to  fall,  and  should  carry  our  sobered 
view  a  fortiori  into  the  Logos. 

For  listen,  now,  to  the  theologians.  One  of  the 
most  distinguished  boldly  plants  himself  on  this  po- 
sition. "  In  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  the  manifest- 
ed Jehovah  is  called  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  him 
individual  subsistence  and  divine  perfections  are 
ascribed"  (Dr.  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.  Vol.  i  :  p.  505). 
This,  if  it  were  launched  at  random,  would  be  less  to 
our  purpose  :  but  the  texts  are  picked  out  (Ps.  xxxiii : 
6;  cxix  :  89;  Is.  xl  :  8  ;  Ps.  cvii :  20;  cxlvii :  18). 
Dr.  Hodge  has  selected  five  of  the  Old  Testament 
expressions.  And  I  beg  the  reader  to  notice  them 
closely  ;  for  these  are  picked  texts.  "  Wisdom"  has 
passed,  in  all  the  splendor  of  her  dramatic  realness. 
And,  now,  these  are  to  go  by.  I  do  not  doubt  that 
Loeos  has  the  more  formidable  claim.  But  where 
does  it  get  it  ?  We  are  mustering  everything  in 
turn  ;  and,  just  now,  are  to  be  busy  with  the  Old 
Testament  revelation. 

And,  now,  the  first  of  Dr.  Hodge's  five  texts  is 
this  ;  '•  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens 
made"  (Ps.  xxxiii :  6).    The  question  is,  whether  that 


God  the  Son.  85 

would  teach  a  hypostasis  any  more  than  the  *'  voice" 
of  God,  or  the  "  name"  of  God.  "  By  the  word  of 
the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of 
them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth."  The  question  is, 
why  one  should  be  treated  hypostatically,  and  not  the 
other  :  and  the  question  lies  further,  why  translate 
the  other  word,  "  breath"  ?  Why  not  translate  it, 
"  Spirit"  ?  And  if  it  be  translated  **  Spirit,"  why  give 
the  same  hypostatic  work  indiscriminately  to  both 
hypostases  ?  and  why,  in  fact,  imagine  hypostatic 
condition  of  either  ;  I  mean,  in  deference  to  the  proof 
that  can  be  extracted  from  this  foremost  one  of  the 
five  selected  passages  ? 

The  second  is  this,  ''  Forever,  O  Lord,  thy  word 
is  settled  in  heaven"  (Ps.  cxix  :  89). 

The  third  is  this,  *'  The  word  of  our  God  shall 
stand  forever"  (Is.  xl :  8). 

The  fourth  is  this,  '*  He  sent  his  word,  and  healed 
them"  (Ps.  cvii :  20). 

The  fifth  is  this,  '*  He  sendeth  out  his  word,  and 
melteth  them"  (Ps.  cxlvii  :   18). 

These  are  the  five  texts. 

I  beg  everyone  to  read  them.  And  then  I  beg  a 
verdict :  whether  "in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  [these 
being  the  ones  selected]  the  manifested  Jehovah  is 
called  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  him  individual  sub- 
sistence and  divine  perfections  are  ascribed."  And 
I  ask  this  further  verdict :  whether,  if  this  question 
be  answered  in  the  negative,  the  fact-  that  these  texts 
were  ever  thought  of  to  teach  a  Trinity,  is  not  an 
argument  against  it ;  and  whether  we  do  not  start, 
in  the  consideration  of  the  Logos,  with  some  store 


86  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

of  grounded  motive  to  watch  well  the  proof,  before 
we  think  the  Word  of  God  is  the  base  of  any  hypo- 
statical  relation  ? 

If  any  antagonist  declare,  that  the  Jews  looked 
very  narrowly  at  these  same  passages,  we  shall  begin 
there  a  series  of  remarks,  which  we  shall  depend 
upon  entirely,  to  introduce  us,  in  an  intelligible  way, 
into  the  New  Testament  testimonies.  Beyond  a 
doubt  the  Old  Testament  doctors  of  the  law  did  deal 
with  the  Logos,  and  that  in  very  extraordinary  ways. 
Would  it  be  unfair  to  ask,  what  was  the  propriety  of 
what  they  did  ?  As  they  resorted  to  very  notorious 
expedients,  the  question  has  long  ago  offered  itself, 
Were  they  right  ?   or  were  they  wrong  ? 

And  the  world  has  answered. 

They  prepared  important  Targums  ;  that  is  to  say, 
they  paraphrased  the  Old  Testament  revelation. 
These  paraphrases  were  universally  accepted  ;  and, 
when  Christ  came  upon  the  earth,  they  were  in  many 
synagogues,  and  the  reading  of  the  Targums  was  a 
thing  familiar  to  Israelitish  worshippers. 

I  beg  you,  pause  at  this.  What  the  Targums 
taught,  the  Bible  taught  ;  so  thought  the  Jews  :  and 
by  that  superstitious  bent,  notorious  among  the  Rab- 
bis, the  Jews  knew  no  difference  ;  and  what  was  sur- 
reptitiously brought  into  the  faith,  stood  as  well  with 
vast  herds  of  the  people,  if  it  was  writ  in  the  Tar- 
gums, as  if  it  was  originally  fixed  as  part  of  the  word 
of  the  Almighty. 

Now,  one  of  the  things  superstitiously  tampered 
with  was  "  The  Word  of  Jehovah."  The  Targums 
had  multiplied  it.     Instead  of  the  few  cases  inciden- 


God  the  Son.  87 

tal  to  an  easy  rhetoric,  where  the  term,  if  it  had  been 
left,  would  have  been  easily  understood,  they  made 
it  memorable  by  writing  it  all  the  time.  They  cast 
out  the  word  **  Jehovah"  two  hundred  times,  and  put 
in  ''  the  Word  of  Jehovah,"  with  no  other  warrant 
than  some  growing  and  unquestioned  superstition. 
This  came  down  to  New  Testament  times.  Of  course 
we  have  a  right  to  be  aware  of  it,  and  to  watch  it  very 
narrowly.  John,  Irenaeus  tells  us,  wrote  his  gospel 
to  oppose  certain  errors  which  he  goes  on  to  describe 
(Irenaeus,  III.  1 1).  These  Targums  came  into  Africa. 
They  were  the  treasures  of  the  Ptolemaic  time.  They 
were  coincident  with  the  Septuagint.  They  mingled 
with  the  Greek  literature.  And,  as  the  result,  we 
have  an  understood  form  of  faith.  That  is,  it  is  a 
matter  of  history,  that  the  Platonic  Trinity,  which  is 
the  first  we  read  of  as  in  the  possession  of  Israel,  wove 
itself  upon  this  Targum  frame  ;  and  now,  as  a  thing 
actually  confessed,  produced  a  "  Word"  which  ortho- 
dox and  errorists  alike,  confess  was  miserable  super- 
stition. 

Irenaeus  describes  it:  '' Monogenes*  was  the 
Arche,t  but  Logos  was  the  true  son  of  Monogenes. 
This  creation,  to  which  we  belong,  was  not  made 
by  the  primary  God,  but  by  some  power  lying  far 
below  him  ;  and  that  [power  was]  off  from  commu- 
nion with  things  invisible  and  ineffable"  (Iren.  B.  iii : 
C.  II). 

The  Apocrypha,  we  ought  long  ago  to  have  said, 
hypostasizing  the  "  Word,"  and  hypostasizing  also 
''Wisdom,"  came  out,  on  these  superstitious  grounds, 

*  "  The  Only  Begotten."     f  "  The  Bcgmnmg." 
24 


88  The  Trmity  and  Scripture. 

in  the  strongest  manner ;  and  climbed  up,  partly  by 
the  help  of  such  outspokenness,  into  unquestioned 
rivalry  with  the  better  canon.  Philo  came  upon  the 
scene.  "  Logos"  became  the  bete  noir  of  all  Judaico- 
Ptolemaic  thought.  Philo  ripened  it  into  a  system. 
Philo  rooted  it  in  the  East.  Though,  the  remark 
applied  to  him  by  Newman  applies  better  perhaps 
to  others  his  disciples,  that,  "  associating  it  (the  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos)  with  Platonic  notions  as  well  as 
words,  [he]  developed  its  lineaments  with  so  rude 
and  hasty  a  hand,  as  to  separate  the  idea  of  the  Di- 
vine Word  from  that  of  the  Eternal  God,  and  so, 
perhaps,  to  prepare  the  way  for  Arianism"  (New- 
man's Arians,  p.  95). 

Now  John  came.  But  before  we  seek  light  upon 
him,  let  us  ask,  What  was  this  system,  after  all?  It 
is  impossible  to  say.  Philo  was  full  and  explicit. 
But  Philo  was  quickly  departed  from.  There  was 
no  one  system.  But  yet  the  tendency  was  this,  to 
teach  what  was  called  a  "  Second  God."  The  Logos 
was  an  emanation.  It  was  not  eternal  ;  nor  was  it 
equal  to  the  Father.  Yet  it  was  not  a  creature.  It 
was  intermediate,  and  subordinate  ;  not  brought  into 
being  by  an  act,  but  begotten  ;  and  yet  not  born 
from  eternity,  but,  to  express  all  in  a  single  sentence, 
intermediate,  and  an  emanation  in  time. 

Undoubtedly  this  paved  the  Vay  for  Arianism  ; 
and  John,  when  he  came  into  the  church,  had  to 
choose,  whether  he  would  ignore  it,  or  refute  it,  or 
by  a  few  strong  words  trample  upon  it  ;  and  this 
last,  by  the  testimony  of  Irenseus,  and  as  we  tried  to 


God  the  Son.  89 

show  in  another  part  of  our  book,  he  took  up  his  pen 
emphatically  to  do. 

*'  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word"  (Jo.  i :   i). 

Let  us  now  look  at  this  somewhat  more  carefully. 

The  Philonists  taught  that  the  '*  Logos"  was  an 
emanation  in  time.  John  denies  this.  He  says,  "  In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word :"  and,  whatever  he 
means  by  the  "■  Logos,"  he  sweeps,  at  one  blow,  all 
its  intermediate  nature.  Then  he  goes  further.  He 
says,  "  The  Word  wa.s  pros  ton  Theon  ;''  and,  in  Paul, 
pros  ton  Thcoir  twice  means,  ''  pertaining  to"  the 
Almighty  (Heb.  ii :  17;  v:  i).  It  never  means 
'*  with  ;"^  I  beg  to  insist  upon  this.  The  Greek 
"  with"  is  entirely  a  different  preposition.  Then, — 
The  Word  was  in  the  beginning,  and  it  pertained  to 
God.  That  is,  whatever  the  Word  might  be  found 
to  be,  it  was  always  :  it  was  not  an  emanation. 
Moreover  it  referred  to  God,  like  his  ''  hand,"  or  his 
"  arm."  And  then,  to  put  aside  all  doubt,  "  God 
was  it ;"  just  as  we  would  speak  of  his  "  voice"  or  his 
"  finger,"  if  men  began  with  them  as  a  superstition. 
**  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  had 
reference  to  God,  and  God  was  the  Word  :"  and  we 
have  already  shown  how  Meyer  objects  to  this  last, 
saying  that  it  would  subvert  the  Trinity  /  (see  also  Al- 
ford,  ^^  aL)\  and  how  Middleton  has  reigned  for  gen- 
erations under  the  false  syntactical  pretence  (see 
Gram.  Chap,  iii  :  s.  4,  §  i)  that  the  article  before  the 
"  Logos"  must  necessarily  reverse  the  Greek.f 

*  See  note,  I.  Chap.  V. 

f  On  the  contrary,  the  article  is  or  is  not  before  a  word,  simply 
for  a  purpose.    It  is  not  before  it  usually  in  the  predicate,  because  the 


90  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

To  sum  up  ;  John  does  not  discard  the  "  Word." 
On  the  contrary;  he  uses  it.  It  was  used  in  the 
legitimate  Scriptures.  It  had  grown  in  the  use  of 
the  people.  It  had  been  wonderfully  abused.  But 
it  still  means  God  tittering  himself :  and  that  he  did 
in  the  Redeemer.  And,  believing  that  it  was  a 
graceful  type,  and  believing  that  he  must  wrest  it 
from  its  heresies,  and  uttering  those  sharp  expres- 
sions in  its  case,  he  launches  it  again  upon  the  page, 
alas  !  to  be  yet  more  misconceived,  and  to  be  made, 
like  sentences  of  Christ  (Jo.  iii :  5;  vi :  53;  Matt, 
xvi :  18;  Jo.  XX :  23),  the  base  of  perpetuated  su- 
perstition. 

§  10.    The  Son  and  t lie  Creation. 

Turning  from  the  "  Logos,"  which  I  ought  to 
have  said  John  returns  to  in  its  most  ordinary  signifi- 
cation^ (Jo.  xii :  48  ;  xiv  :  24  ;  I  Jo.  ii  :  14  ;  Rev.  xx  : 
4),  I  come  next  to  that  class  of  passages  which  speak 
of  Christ  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe.  Let  me 
quote  some  of  them.  "  By  him  were  all  things  cre- 
ated" (Col.  i :  16,  17).  "  By  whom  also  he  made  the 
worlds"  (Heb.  i:  2).     "Thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning, 

predicate  is  usually  generic,  and  not  specific.  But,  in  this  case,  it  hap- 
pens to  be  specific,  and  actually  demands  the  article.  We  put  it  in 
the  English.  To  get  at  our  meaning  we  do  not  say,  The  God  was  Word, 
as  we  would  say,  "  The  knife  was  steel"  ;  but  we  say,  "  God  was  the 
Word,"  just  as  in  another  case  we  say,  "  Spirit  was  God"  (Jo.  iv : 
24  ;  see  the  Greek) ;  a  case  equally  perverted  and  lost  in  the  sense 
that  was  designed. 

*  Would  there  not  have  been  more  care  about  this,  if  John  had 
really  thought  it  was  a  Person  of  the  Trinity  ?  Would  he  not  have  been 
more  saving  of  the  term,  and  tried  to  keep  it  apart,  just  as  we  have 
said  of  Jehovah,  if  it  had  so  rare  a  meaning? 


God  the  Son.  91 

hast  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Earth"  (Heb.  viii :  10). 
If  Christ  came  to  be,  as  a  distinct  actor  upon  the  scene, 
only  when  he  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  how  possibly 
can  we  carve  our  way  through  these  remarkable 
attestations  ? 

And  I  ask,  in  the  first  place,  How  can  anybody  ? 

We  believe  that  Jehovah  was  incarnate.  That 
which  was  incarnate,  therefore,  made  the  world.  We 
believe  that  Christ  was  born  as  a  man.  Christ  as  a 
man,  never  made  anything.  That,  all  will  concede. 
We  believe  that  Christ  was  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father.  So  do  all  of  us.  We  believe  that  one  sub- 
stance made  the  world.  So  do  all.  We  believe  that 
the  Three  Persons  made  the  world,  if  there  are  Three 
Persons  in  the  Trinity.  So  do  all  (Eph.  iii :  9 ;  Heb. 
i:  10;  Job  xxvi :  13).  We  believe  that  there  are 
not  Three  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  but  that  the  One 
Person  made  the  world.  This  is  our  sole  point  of 
difference. 

Now  if  we  thought  as  most  persons  think,  w^e 
would  take  our  stand  upon  this  line,  and  say,  Jesus 
Christ  created  the  world,  because  he  was  incarnate 
Jehovah. 

Why  not  say  that  ? 

It  may  be  answered,  because  ''  by"  or  "  through" 
Jehovah  would  not  seem  a  significant  revelation. 
Why  not?  as  that  very  word  is  employed  ?(i  Cor.  i : 
9  ;  Heb.  ii :  10).  At  least,  it  may  be  said,  God  creat- 
ing "  by"  God,  or  Jehovah  "  by"  Jesus  Christ,  would 
not  be  a  significant  revelation,  if  Jehovah's  One 
Eternal  Person  was  all  that  was  engaged  in  the  crea- 
tive act.     Again  I  say,  Wherein  does  the  Trinitarian 


92  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

complain  ?  for  One  Person  creating  '*  by"  another 
Person,  and  One  Person  equal  to  that  other  Person, 
and  that  Person  the  same  in  substance,  and  all  the 
Persons  equally  engaged  in  the  work  of  creation,  does 
not  leave  the  Trinitarian  much  better,  on  a  basis  of 
grammatic  sense,  if  we  believe  in  the  incarnation  of 
our  original  Creator. 

We  are  weak,  however,  in  any  such  polemic,  be- 
cause we  are  fighting  against  our  thought.  We  do 
not  believe  that  it  is  referring  to  the  original  Jehovah. 
And  when  the  apostle  speaks  of  creating  '*  all  things 
by  Jesus  Christ"  (Eph.  iii  :  9),  I  do  not  think  the 
Trinitarian  himself  can  exclude  the  Humanity  from 
this  assertion. 

Let  me  explain. 

If  it  were  left  peremptorily  to  decide  whether 
God  necessarily  were  a  Trinity,  because  he  created 
by  Jesus  Christ,  I  would  say  that  One  Person  creating 
by  Another  Person,  when  both  were  one,  and  all 
shared  in  the  creation,  were  a  much  more  confused 
account  than  God  creating  "by"  himself  (Gen.  xxii : 
16;  Heb.  i:  3):  but  as  I  believe  that  neither  is  the 
true  solution,  and  both  are  alien  from  what  is  meant, 
I  feel  it  far  better  to  pay  Httle  attention  to  either,  and 
go  at  once  to  that  light  which  can  be  gathered  from 
a  more  general  survey  of  the  sacred  text. 

I  said,  in  treating  of  the  Spirit,  that  it  is  in  all 
degrees  of  subjectivity.  When  it  says.  The  Holy 
Ghost  spake  (Acts  xxviii :  25),  it  is  hardly  subjective 
at  all.  When  it  speaks  of  "  a  meek  and  quiet  spirit" 
(James  iii :  4),  it  is  hardly  Divine  at  all.  Between 
the  passages  where  it  is  so  barely  God  as  to  retain 


God  the  Son.  93 

little  emblem  of  a  "  Breath,"  and  those  passages 
where  it  is  so  barely  man  as  to  retain  little  of  the  at- 
titude of  the  Almighty,  there  are  all  degrees  that  in- 
tervene ;  and  it  has  been  a  failure  to  keep  up  with 
the  rhetoric,  that  has  squared  men  down  to  Arian 
views  of  some  intermediate  Almighty. 

Now,  it  is  the  same  with  Christ  and  the  creation. 
Between  the  extreme  of  creation  "by"  Jehovah,  and 
the  extreme  of  creation  "  by"  our  fellow  Man,  there 
are  all  degrees  of  difference  ;  and  I  wish  to  mention 
three,  that  almost  stand  by  themselves  with  little 
other  shading. 

(i)  For  example,  first,  there  is  a  passage  in  the 
Hebrews  in  which  the  Son  is  mentioned,  and  in 
which  we  read,  "  by  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds" 
(Heb.  i :  2)  ;  and  in  which  this  Scripture  is  quoted  in 
attestation  :  "  Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning  hast  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  earth  ;  and  the  heavens  are  the 
works  of  thine  hands"  (Ps.  cii :  25).  We  turn  to  the 
Psalm,  and  it  is  throughout  Jehovah.  There  is  no 
sign  of  any  discrepance  of  Person  ;  and  it  is  perhaps, 
beyond  the  majority  of  the  Psalter,  free  of  the  Mes- 
siah. We  bow  our  heads,  therefore,  to  the  fact,  that 
the  Jews  referred  it  to  the  Messiah,  or,  at  any  rate,  to 
the  proof,  that  Paul,  speaking  by  divine  revelation, 
quoted  it  that  way,  and,  therefore,  that  God's  mak- 
ing all  things  by  Christ  is  illustrated,  in  this  particu- 
lar case,  by  the  fact,  that  Jehovah,  who  was  incarnate 
in  the  Redeemer,  originally  and  by  himself  made  the 
worlds.  This  is  the  extreme  in  one  direction  ;  viz., 
the  particle,  "  by,"  enfolding  direct  causation,  as  we 
know  by  all  the  Lexicons  that  it  does  in  other  parts 


94  TJie  Trinity  and  Scripture, 

of  the  word  of  God  (Rom.  xi :  36  ;  i  Cor.  i :  9).  Then 
comes  an  intermediate  case,  where  "  by"  is  used  for 
the  norm  or  the  rule.  For  example,  in  the  instance 
of  "  Wisdom  :"  ''  The  Lord  by  wisdom  hath  founded 
the  earth  ;  by  understanding  hath  he  established  the 
heavens"  (Prov.  iii :  19).  To  get  rid  of  prejudice,  let 
us  take  the  second  clause.  "■  By  understanding" 
cannot  mean  causally  or  efficiently  ;  it  must  mean 
modally  ;  and,  therefore,  we  are  given  the  warrant 
for  God's  doing  *'  by"  things  that  which  he  does 
causally  and  in  himself;  and  that  of  which  the  "  wis- 
dom" and  the  "  understanding"  express  the  mere 
normal  relation. 

Now,  carry  that  to  the  instance  of  the  "Word." 
"All  things  were  made  by  him"  (Jo.  i :  3).  Here  the 
case  is  a  little  different.  Here  it  is  not  mere  "  Wis- 
dom." Here  the  rhetoric  has  been  carried  further  ; 
and  God  has  positively  been  announced  to  be  the 
"  Word."  Still,  I  do  not  think  mere  causality  is  in- 
tended. If  the  Scriptures  had  said,  "  God  is  Love  ;" 
and  then  gone  on  to  say,  God  by  Love  made  the 
heavens, — I  would  not  think  that  it  merely  meant 
that  God  created  them.  I  would  think  that  there 
was  more  in  the  rhetoric.  I  would  not  think  that  it 
separated  Love  hypostatically  from  God,  but  that  it 
was  mere  spoken  common-sense  ;  mere  Oriental  ef- 
fective speaking.  I  would  not  conceive  that  it  im- 
plied a  separate  Person,  but  that  God  by  the  norm 
of  his  Love  created  all  things  under  that  modal  in- 
spiration. 

So,  now,  of  the  "  Word."  I  believe  it  is  more  rhe- 
torical than  "Love,"  because  it  is  more  the  person. 


God  the  Son.  95 

It  is  more  God  actually  uttering  himself;  and  yet,  for 
all  that,  when  it  says,  "  All  things  were  made  by  him," 
I  think  it  means  more  than  that  God  made  all  things 
himself;  and  calls  up  the  idea  of  a  word,  or  universal 
decree,  uttered  from  the  beginning  of  time,  "by" 
which,  as  the  norm  and  also  utterance  of  power,  every- 
thing was  made  that  was  made. 

(2)  We  mark  this  down,  therefore,  as  the  second 
shading  of  the  representation. 

(3)  But  there  is  a  third.  God  from  all  eternity 
was  not  complete  for  the  work  of  creation.  He  was 
complete  in  power.  Give  him  the  name  of  "The 
Word,"  and  imagine  that  Word  to  be  himself,  uttered 
out  in  all  his  endless  purposes  :  give  him  credit  for  all 
he  is  to  be,  and  means  to  do,  and  then  he  is  complete. 
But  cut  off  from  him  future  plans  and  the  long-sub- 
sequent incarnation,  and  he  can  create  nothing.  I 
mean  by  that,  he  determined  to  build  everything 
upon  Jesus  Christ.  We  see  this  in  every  part  of  the 
revelation.  Christ  was  to  be  **  head  over  all  things 
to  the  church"  (Eph.  i :  22).  And  when  we  remem- 
ber that  God  forgave  for  four  thousand  years,  and 
ruled  the  world  for  four  thousand  years,  and  laid  his 
plans  before  the  creation  of  the  stars  and  all  upon 
Christ,  I  think  we  can  begin  to  see  what  he  means  by 
creating  "all  things  by  Jesus  Christ"  (Eph.  iii :  9). 
Moreover,  considering  that  Christ  was  a  man  ;  con- 
sidering that  Jesus  Christ  was  preeminently  the  Incar- 
nate God  ;  considering  that  he  had  no  name  like  Jesus, 
before  he  was  incarnate  ;  and  considering  that  Trini- 
tarians themselves  must  believe  that  God  out  of  Christ 
was  a  consuming  fire ;  and  that  it  was  the  suffering 


96  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

and  obedience  of  the  man  which  it  was  necessary  to 
build  the  world  upon,  as  to  the  whole  scheme  of  its 
creation, — I  should  think  that  even  the  Trinitarian 
would  agree  that  there  is  a  certain  sort  of  sense  in 
which  God  created  the  world  by  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Now,  if  there  is  any  such  sense  at  all,  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  be  the  whole  sense.  That  is  the  argument 
we  press,  (i)  ''Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning"  :  that 
is  Jehovah  ;  and  means  that  Christ  created  all  things, 
because  he  was  Jehovah.  (2)  "  All  things  were  made 
by  it"  (Jo.  i:  3).  That  is  Jehovah  too  ;  but  Jehovah 
as  the  manifested  Word  ;  and  means  that  God  cre- 
ated all  things  by  one  consistent  self-uttering  mani- 
festation. But  (3) ''  By  him  were  all  things  created" 
(Col.  i:  16);  that  is  a  much  more  complete  idea; 
and  means  that  God,  without  Christ,  is  imperfect ; 
that  is,  that  God,  without  Christ,  is  impossible  ;  that 
life,  without  Christ,  cannot  be;  that  the  world,  with- 
out life,  is  a  waste  ;  that  the  universe,  without  Christ, 
is  a  failure  ;  and  therefore,  that  the  Babe  of  Beth- 
lehem, though  a  trifle  (Is.  xli  :  24)  ;  though  in  him- 
self a  worm  of  the  dust  (Is.  xli :  14) ;  though  an  easy 
outbirth  of  God's  omnipotence  ;  and,  therefore,  sure 
to  be  ; — nevertheless  had  to  be ;  that  is,  that  God 
was  doing  oceans  of  work  without  him,  which  de- 
pended upon  him  ;  that  he  was  forgiving  millions 
of  souls  ;  and  that  the  whole  shape  of  the  creation 
was  given  by  the  man  (who,  nevertheless,  was  eter- 
nally God),  who  was  born  in  a  manger  in  the  town 
of  Bethlehem. 

Now,  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  passages, 
we  can  tell  by  looking  at  them.    Listen  to  the  Apostle 


God  the  Son.  97 

Paul,  "  And  to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  mystery  :"  what  mystery,  except  these 
unbased  and  uncxplicated  pardons? — but  he  goes  on 
to  explain  :  "  which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
hath  been  hid  in  God  :"  now  he  is  going  to  utter  our 
very  idea  :  "  which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
hath  been  hid  in  God,  who  created  all  things  by 
Jesus  Christ"  (Eph.  iii :  9).  These  ideas  are  every- 
where repeated.  Paul  says,  "  Who  hath  saved  us  ac- 
cording to  grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus 
before  the  world  began"  (2  Tim.  i  :  9).  Christ  says, 
"  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  King- 
dom prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world"  (Matt,  xxv:  34).  And  Paul  absolutely  lays 
bare  the  whole  rhetoric  ;  for  he  speaks  of  such  a  case 
in  Abraham,  where  God  talks  to  an  old  shepherd, 
and  calls  a  thing  done,  before  there  is  even  a  gleam 
of  it ;  and  then  says,  "  before  him  whom  he  believed, 
even  God,  who  quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth 
those  things  which  be  not  as  though  they  were" 
(Rom.  iv:   17). 

Our  doctrine,  therefore,  is,  that  Christ  created  all 
things.  We  agree  with  the  Trinitarian  that  he  is 
God,  and,  as  God,  built  the  universe.  But  as  we  do 
not  think  this  exhausts  the  passages,  we  would  not, 
even  if  we  were  a  Trinitarian,  explain  them  of  the 
Almighty.  We  believe  that  the  MAN  gave  shape  to 
the  universe  ;  and,  though  we  believe  that  God  gave 
everything  to  the  Man  ;  yet  we  believe  he  needed 
this  Man,  to  complete  his  works  ;  and,  therefore, 
that,  when  he  says,  "  All  things  are  created  by  him 
and  for  him  "  (/.  c.  in  reference  to  him)  ;  and  when  he 
5 


98  The   Trijiity  and  Scripture, 

says,  '*  He  is  before  all  things;"  and  when  he  says, 
**  In  him  all  things  stood  together"  (Col.  i :  16,  17), — 
he  means,  that  he  is  the  husband  (house-band)  of  the 
universe  ;  that  "  without  him  was  not  anything  made 
that  was  made"  (Jo.  1:3);  that  God  had  "  chosen  us 
in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (Eph.  i : 
4) ;  that  our  life  was  hid  with  him  in  God  (Col.  iii : 
3)  ;  and  that  it  was  on  the  man  alone  that  the  prom- 
ise could  stand  complete  of  eternal  life  "  before  the 
world  began"  (Titus  i:   i,  2). 

Possibly  we  should  stop  here  :  but  let  us  take 
another  glance  ;  and  then  we  w^ill  finish.  There  is 
another  meaning  to  "  <^z<^."  Not  only  does  it  mean 
causally ;  as,  for  example,  where  God  says,  "  I  will 
answer  him  by  myself"  (Ezek.  xiv:  17);  not  only 
does  it  mean  normally ;  as,  for  example,  ''The  Lord 
by  wisdom  hath  founded  the  earth"  (Prov.  iii  :  19)  ; 
not  only  does  it  mean  vistrunicntally,  in  such  a  sense 
that  the  new  Christ  was  necessary  to  the  old  crea- 
tion ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  God,  in  an  age  of  par- 
dons, and  in  an  eternity  of  divine  decrees,  was  really 
building  upon  Christ,  and  could  not  advance  a  step, 
except  on  the  faith  of  what  he  was  yet  to  be  :  but, 
once  more;  it  means  accovipanyingly ;  nay  more; 
pregnantly.  That  is ;  when  Christ  was  created,  all 
things  were  created.  This  was  a  bold  rhetoric 
utterance  ;  because  Christ  was  created  long  after  the 
heavens.  But  the  idea,  meant  to  be  conveyed,  is, 
for  all  that,  apparent.  ''  Without  him  was  not  any- 
thing made  that  was  made."  Logically,  he  was  the 
precursor  of  the  universe.  That  dia  has  such  a 
meaning,  we  see  often.    ''  Praying  often  by  all  prayer" 


God  the  Son.  99 

(Eph.  vl :  18).  "  Neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and 
calves,  but  by  his  own  blood."  (Heb.  ix :  1 2).  "  Who 
by  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself"  (Heb.  ix:  14). 
'*  This  is  he  who  came  by  water  and  blood"  (i  Jo. 
v:  6).  The  shades  are  very  different;  just  as  the 
word  "  Spirit,"  we  saw,  had  different  shades  of  sub- 
jectivity :  but  all  the  uses  show  that  dia  has  singular 
versatility  of  meaning.  It  means,  first,  "  by,"  causal. 
It  means,  second,  "  by,"  normal.  It  means,  third, 
*'  by,"  instrumental,  and  instrumental  in  a  very  pecu- 
liar sense,  viz.,  not  actual,  but  logical,  the  inexistent 
Man  being  the  sine  qua  non  of  the  world's  creation. 
And  it  means  dia,  inclusive. 

These  four  all  blend.  The  dia  causal  includes  of 
course  all  that  is  in  the  Cause,  viz.,  the  wisdom  and 
the  word  by  which  he  operates.  The  dia  normal 
refers  more  to  the  decree  or  plan  which  the  unspeak- 
able Word  or  self-manifesting  Jehovah  had  before  all 
time.  The  dia  instrumental  involves  the  instru- 
ments which  that  self-manifesting  Word  must  ordain, 
and  in  the  end  call  into  being.  And  the  dia  inclu- 
sive is  just  a  further  thought,  viz., — when  Christ  was 
decreed,  all  things  were  decreed ;  and  that  not 
merely  accompanyingly,  as  in  your  case  or  mine,  but 
pregnantly.  When  Christ  was  laid  down  in  the  plan, 
all  things  were  laid  down.  "  In  him  all  things  stood 
together"  (Col.  i:  17).  By  him  ;  that  is,  as  an  efflux 
from  him, — logically  all  things  followed.  And  though 
he  was  long  after  in  time,  yet  John  struck  the  key 
when  he  said,  '*  He  was  before  me"  (Jo.  i:  15)  ;  that 
is  to  say  (I  of  course  now  mean  the  Man)  was  to  be 
'*  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church  (Eph.  i :  22)  ; 
25 


lOO  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

was  to  be  above  all  *'  principality  and  power"  (Eph. 
i:  2i)  ;  was  to  have  "  all  authority  (power,  E.  V.)  in 
heaven  and  in  earth"  (Matt,  xxviii :  i8) ;  was  to  have 
"  all  things  made  with  him  and  in  reference  to  him" 
(Col.  i :  i6)  ;  and  was,  therefore,  even  though  as  a 
man,  the  first  born  of  all  things  ;  or,  as  Paul  ex- 
presses it,  the  "  first  born  of  the  whole  creation" 
(Col.  i:   15). 

§  II.  The  Son's  Pre  existence. 

There  are  three  ways  in  which  the  Son  may  be 
regarded  ;  either,  first,  as  Jehovah  ;  or,  second,  as 
Jehovah  and  man  ;  or,  third,  as  man,  apart  from  the 
Deity  ;  that  is  to  say,  as  man,  aside  from  the  other 
nature,  but  still  inseparable  from  it,  and  carrying 
about  the  glories  that  belong  to  the  man  as  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  the  Father.  Now,  in  all  these  three 
ways  the  Scriptures  speak  of  Christ. 

When,  therefore,  we  are  told,  **  Before  Abraham 
was  I  am"  (Jo.  viii :  58),  we  have  an  easy  course; 
because  in  that  text  we  need  only  think  of  Jehovah. 
If  Jesus  Christ  was  God,  we  may  expect  him  to 
speak  of  being  before  all  time.  And,  therefore,  when 
he  says  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega"  (Rev.  i :  8),  we 
have  nothing  to  remembep  but  that  agreed-upon 
fact,  ''  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father"  (Phil,  ii :   11). 

But,  now,  by  the  light  of  what  we  have  learned 
in  deaUng  with  the  creation,  let  us  remember  that 
God  was  not  enough  to  be  our  Maker.  Forgive  the 
irreverence.  God  was  the  Father  of  the  Son  ;  that 
is,  everything  that  was  in   the   Son  came  from  the 


God  the  Soft.  loi 

Almighty.  Therefore  the  Father  was  enough  ;  for 
all  that  the  Son  needed  God  gave  him.  He  was  not 
only  the  God  himself  that  dwelt  in  the  Redeemer,  but 
he  made  the  humanity.  So  that  all  the  Christ  came 
from  him;  so  that  we  cannot  say,  in  any  disparaging 
way,  at  all,  that  God  was  not  sufficient  for  his  works, 
and  that  he  was  not  sure  to  execute  all  that  he  had 
decreed. 

But  we  do  say,  that  he  could  not  execute  it  with- 
out Christ.  God  could  not  save  without  the  man 
born  in  Bethlehem  ;  and,  therefore,  Christ  was  more, 
in  an  intelligible  sense,  than  the  Almighty  ;  for  he 
was  God  in  the  plenitude  of  his  substance,  and  he 
was  also  Man  ;  and  that  Man  was  necessary,  as  a 
great  essential  of  our  sacrifice. 

Why  then  should  it  be  thought  unnatural  that 
Christ  should  loom  up  from  eternity?  that  he  should 
be  talked  of  from  eternity?  that  he  should  be  built 
upon  from  eternity?  that  is  to  say,  that  nothing 
should  be  done  that  did  not  look  at  him  ;  and  that 
nothing  should  be  planned  that  did  not  make  him  the 
central  figure  ;  so  that,  not  yet  born,  he  became  the 
most  familiar  thought  in  the  decree,  and  the  most 
familiar  object  in  the  wide  creation. 

Now,  immediately  we  can  parcel  out  all  the  texts 
that  seem  to  speak  of  a  preexistence. 

1.  In  the  first  place.  He  did  preexist.  Jesus 
Christ  was  literally  God  ;  and,  therefore,  he  preex- 
isted nakedly,  and  in  the  most  disentangled  way  (Jo. 
viii :   58  ;  Heb.  i :   10). 

2.  But,  secondly,  he  was  God  and  man  ;  and 
there  are  passages  that  speak  of  him  as  coming  down 


102  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

from  heaven  (Jo.  vi :  38) ;  there  are  passages  that 
speak  of  him  as  ascending  up  where  he  was  before 
(Jo.  iii  :  13)  ;  there  are  passages  that  speak  of  him 
as  emptying  himself,  and  taking  upon  him  the  form 
of  a  servant,  and  becoming  obedient  unto  death  (Phil, 
ii :  7);  and  hypostatic  theories  seize  upon  this,  and 
say,  Here  is  no  one  original  Jehovah  without  Trinity 
and  mutuality  of  being,  but  here  is  a  Second  Per- 
son ;  and  they  conceive  of  these  as  the  very  strong- 
est texts  to  argue  an  eternal  Logos. 

But  why  ? 

If  we  needed  to  divert  our  thinking,  we  could 
show  that  the  theory  of  a  Second  Person  untied  these 
knots  no  more  completely  than  the  theory  of  One. 
But  the  reality  is,  that  neither  unties  them.  These 
beautiful  sentences  need  more  than  either.  The  form 
that  rises  to  explain  them  is  the  Theanthropos ;  and 
the  second  range  of  passages  are  those,  which,  real- 
izing a  God-man,  and  realizing  that  the  man  is  the 
slenderest  component  of  the  Redeemer,  talk,  even 
when  contemplating  both,  of  the  majesty  of  the  One  ; 
and  make  the  Great  God  our  Saviour  preexist  of 
course ;  because,  though  he  did  not  pick  up  his  hu- 
manity till  the  fulness  of  time,  yet  he  used  it,  and 
acted  upon  it,  from  all  eternity. 

3.  Now,  there  are  a  third  class  of  passages,  that 
are  more  rhetorical  still. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  first  talk  nakedly 
of  God,  because  God  is  incarnate  in  the  Redeemer: 
let  it  be  remembel^ed  that  the  second  talk  also  of 
the  Man,  because  God  and  Man  are  one,  and  yet 
God,  being  the  great  Fountain  of  the  whole  preex- 


God  the  Son.  103 

istence,  is  the  attribute  of  the  nobler  and  constitu- 
ent part  of  our  Deliverer.  But,  lastly,  the  Man  talks 
as  though  he  had  had  immortality.  That  is  the  great 
phenomenon  !  He  talks  of  it  in  a  way  that  no  Trinity 
could  explain.  He  talks  of  it  in  a  way  not  hypostati- 
cal  and  divine,  but  incarnate  and  human.  And  the 
question  is,  How  could  Christ,  being  a  man,  utter 
things  before  the  eye  of  the  Almighty,  that  seemed 
to  imply  that  he,  the  carpenter's  son,  was  from  ever- 
lasting ? 

Now,  it  was  rhetorical. 

Jesus  Christ,  the  great  King  of  Heaven,  was 
necessary  to  the  universe.  He  did  not  live,  till  he  was 
born  ;  but  he  reigned,  and  was  uppermost  in  creation, 
through  myriads  of  years.  "  All  things  were  made 
by  him"  ;  and  not  by  him  as  Jehovah  ;  and  not  by 
him  as  Theanthropos  ;  but,  also,  by  him  as  Man. 
He  was  before  all  things.  Not  a  stone  could  be  laid 
in  the  creation  but  in  his  name.  And  so  familiar  did 
he  become  in  all  time,  that  the  whole  Scripture  is 
colored  by  his  presence,  even  though  he  were  yet 
to  be. 

Now  take  some  of  this  rhetoric  :  *'  Glorify  thou 
me  with  thine  own  self  (Jo.  xvii :  5).  Of  course  that 
is  perfectly  understandable,  because  Christ  has  just 
explained  it :  ''  Glorify  thy  Son,  that  thy  Son  also 
may  glorify  thee"  (v.  i).  But"  glorify  thou  me  with 
thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  that  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was"(v  5).  The  Trinitarian  says. 
This  is  the  Second  Person  ;  and  builds  at  once  all  the 
mutuality  of  the  Trinity.  But  let  him  take  another 
text,   a  *'  Lamb   slain    from    the  foundation  of  the 


104  '^J^^   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

world."  It  is  obvious  that  these  are  rhetorical  liber- 
ties of  the  Bible  :  and  that  the  Father  Jiad  a  glory  ;  a 
glory  that  had  existed  from  eternity  ;  a  glory  in  an  ad- 
ministration based  upon  a  Man  ;  a  glory  of  which 
that  Man  was  an  element  before  he  was  created  ;  and 
a  glory  which,  being  but  a  Man,  and  being  but  a 
breath  of  the  Almighty,  and  being  easily  commanded 
and  summoned  up,  whenever  his  time  should  come, 
he  could  be  imagined  as  having  been  possessed  of 
from  everlasting,  and  as  having  had  actually  dis- 
counted before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

''  When  therefore,"  says  Augustine,  "  he  saw  that 
the  time  of  his  predestined  glorification  had  fully 
come,  that  that  should  now  happen  in  fact  which  had 
already  happened  in  predestiny,  he  prayed  saying : 
*  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  me,  with  thine  own 
self,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
world  was  :'  as  though  he  had  said,  The  glory  which 
I  had  with  thee  in  thy  decree,  it  is  now  time  that  I 
should  have  with  thee  actually,  living  at  thy  right 
hand"  (Augustine,  Com.,  Jo.  xvii :  Tract  105,  §  8). 

This  argument  is  negative.  It  is  mightily  con- 
firmed by  the  testimony  of  such  a  man  as  Austin  : 
but  before  abandoning  this  subject  of  the  preexis- 
tence,  we  would  like  to  glance  at  something  more 
positive.  We  would  like  to  turn  away  from  showing 
that  certain  texts  do  not  prove  the  Trinity,  and 
quote  others  that  reject  it.  And  I  will  do  so  in  this 
manner.  I  will  quote  a  certain  text,  and  then  ask 
the  Trinitarian  to  explain  it :  and  my  object  will  be 
to  show,  that  a  downright  positive  sense  will  drift  the 
sentence  away  from  the  precxistence  of  Emmanuel. 


God  the  Son.  105 

For  example,  this  sentence,  "  The  first  born  of 
every  creature"  (Col.  i:  15).  If  it  be  said,  This  is 
the  eternal  Logos  ;  and  if  we  give  in  to  eternal  gen- 
eration ;  and  if  we  say,  This  Word  was  derived  in  the 
beginning;  and  if  we  then  seek  a  settled  meaning 
by  saying.  This  Word,  being  derived  from  eternity, 
preceded  all  creatures,  and,  therefore,  was  first  de- 
rived among  them  all :  dispensing  with  the  hint  that 
this  is  rather  a  gross  idea,  we  immediately  encounter 
other  texts,  which  the  slenderest  fidelity  to  truth 
must  recognize  as  having  the  same  intention.  Paul 
speaks  of  "  the  first  born  from  the  dead"  (Col.  i :  18). 
John  repeats  the  idea  (Rev.  i :  5).  Now,  I  defy  any 
one  to  read  from  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  The  first-born 
from  the  dead"  (Col.  i:  18),  and  move  his  finger  three 
sentences  back,  and  read,  *'  The  first-born  of  every 
creature"  (v.  15),  and  say,  The  "  first-born"  in  the 
fifteenth  verse,  and  the  "  first-born"  in  the  eigh- 
teenth verse,  are  heaven  wide  in  their  interpretation. 
The  thing  is  impossible.  And,  yet,  if  they  are  not, 
the  *'  first-born"  in  the  fifteenth  verse  must  mean  the 
birth  in  Bethlehem,  or  else  the  "  first  born"  in  the 
eighteenth  verse  must  mean  an  eternal  begetting, 
and  how,  then,  could  that  eternal  begetting  be  a  be- 
getting from  the  dead  ? 

If  it  be  answered,  They  do  mean  differently,  and 
it  is  a  chance  that  they  are  thrown  together  :  and 
such  combinations  do  occur,  as  for  example,  "An- 
swer a  fool  according  to  his  folly"  (Prov.  xxvi :  5), 
and  *'  Answer  not  a  fool  according  to  his  folly"  (v.  4), 
Solomon  actually  choosing  next  door  positions  for 
these  utterly  discrepant  ideas, — I  say,  No  exegete  will 

5* 


lo6  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

be  hardy  enough  to  say  so.  No  fair  scholarship  will 
attempt  to  maintain  it.  For,  not  only  would  one 
instance  of  just  such  a  nature  forbid,  but  there  are 
other  instances  :  not  only  the  instance  in  Revelation, 
and  not  only  the  expression  in  the  Psalm,  fixing  a 
time,  "  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (Ps.  ii :  7), 
but  this  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, — "  For  whom 
he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate,  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the 
first-born  among  many  brethren"  (Rom.  viii:  29). 

Again,  I  will  quote  another  case — a  text  already 
pointed  out,  "  The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world"  (Rev.  xiii :  8).  Does  that  mean  some 
fact  that  was  from  eternity?  Did  anybody  ever 
pretend  it  ?  And  if  not,  will  the  Trinitarian  show 
what  it  means  ?  And,  in  showing  it,  will  he  tell  by 
what  law  of  hermeneutic  light  he  can  read  this 
speech  of  things  happening  in  time,  and  save  the  her- 
meneutic strength  of  passages  of  a  kindred  rhetoric. 

Would  it  be  wrong  to  claim  some  positive  answer 
to  these  appeals? 

And,  thirdly,  the  ''  Son"  of  the  Almighty.  Where 
did  we  get  that  word  ? 

We  have  a  fancy  that,  of  all  Bible  names,  it  is  the 
most  legitimate.  What  a  wonderful  thing  is  theolo- 
gical training !  The  student  who  should  be  sud- 
denly asked,  Why  do  you  say  the  Son  of  God? 
would  answer,  Because  all  men  in  all  ages  have  used 
that  title :  or,  cooling  down  a  Httle,  All  men  in 
Scriptural  ages.  And,  yet,  let  him  examine  the  Bi- 
ble, and  he  will  find  that  it  is  no  where  used  except 
of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem. 


God  the  Son.  107 

Let  me  make  one  exception.  Nebuchadnezzar 
says,  "  The  form  of  the  fourth  is  Hke  the  Son  of 
God"  (Dan.  iii :  25).  We  turn  eagerly  to  examine  ; 
and  the  first  glance  knocks  off  the  article.  This  is 
positively  the  only  passage.  We  have  "  trees  of  the 
Lord"  (Ps.  civ:  16);  and  "rivers  of  God"  (Ps.  Ixv : 
9) ;  and  here  we  have  "  a  son  of  God."  What  can 
we  prove  by  it  ?  The  monarch,  in  his  Persian  speech, 
says,  '*  The  form  of  the  fourth  is  like  a  son  of  God." 
There  might  be  bodings  of  a  son  of  Abraham  (Gen. 
iv :  I  ;  xxii:  18;  Ps.  ii :  12),  which  might  fill  the 
world  with  such  a  speech,  but  how  slender  any  in- 
fluence whatever !  The  Psalmist  says,  "  Kiss  the 
Son"  (Ps.  ii:  12) ;  and  he  says  again,  "  Thou  art  my 
Son"  (v.  7)  ;  but,  of  course,  these  are  prophecies.  He 
says,  in  that  oft  quoted  announcement,  *'  Thou  art 
my  Son:  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (v.  7),  but, 
by  the  last  fragment  of  the  sentence,  fixes  and  de- 
fines what  precedes.  The  word  "  Son,"  like  the  word 
"  Bishop,"  (Acts  XX :  28),  or  like  the  word  "  Person" 
(Heb.  i  :  3),  must  either  be  borrowed,  with  a  confes- 
sion that  that  is  not  its  use,  (Lu.  i  :  35  ;  Jo.  x  :  36), 
or  this  very  serious  adverse  argument  must  be  met — 
that  it  was  no  name  for  a  preexistent  Deity.^ 

*  Why  should  not  this  argument  have  overwhelming  weight  ?  If 
the  filiation  of  the  Son  be  eternal,  and  he  be  a  Person,  by  that  Son- 
ship  made  distinct,  and  having  subsistence  in  a  Trinity,  why  is  not 
that  accented  ?  Why  is  the  main  emphasis  on  what  Gabriel  an- 
nounced ?  W'hy  does  not  God  say,  and  why  does  not  he  say,  that  he 
was  generated  before  time?  And  why  does  not  the  birth  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  (Lu.  i :  35)  stand  aside  as  a  mere  sequence  in  the  case,  and  the 
word  Son  dot  all  the  earlier  annals,  as  chiefly  belonging  to  a  being 
begotten  in  the  heavens. 


io8  The   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

Lastly,  that  wonderful  passage  in  Philippians, 
"  Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God"  (Phil,  ii :  6).  Here  I  wish 
to  ask  a  very  different  question.  Here  I  wish  to  ask, 
Why  is  the  Greek  adjective  in  the  neuter  plural? 
Recollect,  there  is  to  be  a  Second  Person  ;  and  the 
favorite  exposition  of  the  text  is,  that  now  he  is  to 
be  described.  He  is  *'  in  the  form  of  God."  Unfor- 
tunate at  the  very  first  setting  out !  For  think  of  it, 
"  The  same  in  substance,"  and  yet  "  in  the  form"* 
of  the  Almighty  !  But  let  us  go  on.  ''  Thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God"  (v.  6).  Now,  of 
all  other  places  in  the  Bible,  a  simple  singular  mascu- 
line might  at  once  be  expected.  *'  Thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  an  equal  Person  with  God."  Instead 
of  that,  it  is  neuter  :  and  instead  of  the  singular,  it  is 
plural.  And  I  press  a  distinct  answer  to  the  difficulty 
that  in  the  articulate  form  of  speech  there  is  no  rest 
but  in  our  theory.  "  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which 
was  also  in  Christ  Jesus."  According  to  our  theory, 
this  is  the  great  Theanthropos.  **  Who  being  in  the 
form  of  God."  What  could  be  more  expressive? 
Having  the  authority  of  God  ;  having  the  name  of 
God,  so  that  he  can  stand  accepted  for  his  people  ; 
having  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  in  so  marvellous  a 

*  We  believe  Jesus  Christ  to  be  God,  even  more  than  our  breth- 
ren :  but  if  we  believed  he  was  a  separate  God,  or,  from  eternity,  a 
separate  person  in  God,  we  would  expect  Paul,  in  so  elaborate  a  sen- 
tence, to  say  something  about  that.  We  would  not  expect  him  to 
begin  about  his  being  "  in  the  form  of  God"  ;  just  as  we  would  not 
expect,  in  the  same  case,  Gabriel  to  be  telling  Mary  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  should  overshadow  her,  and  that  therefore  that  holy  thing, 
that  should  be  begotten,  should  be  called  the  Son  of  God. 


God  tJic  Son.  109 

way,  that  God  is  in  him  as  One  Person, — it  is  full  of 
significance,  as  he  stood  out  upon  the  street  "  in  the 
form"  of  the  Almighty.  And  yet,  there  were  some 
reserves.  He  was  truly  God.  But  his  humanity  was 
not  truly  God.  And,  therefore,  there  were  certain 
definitions  to  be  made.  There  were  certain  respects 
in  which  he  was  not  Almighty.  He  was  Almighty 
in  emptying  himself,  in  making  himself  of  no  reputa- 
tion, in  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  in 
being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man  ;  but  he  was  not 
Almighty  in  his  manhood  ;  and  there  distinctions  had 
to  be  made.  Hence  the  beauty  of  the  language, 
''  that  there  should  be  equal  respects  with  God"  {to 
einai  isd).  This  is  no  speech  of  an  Hypostasis  :  it  is  no 
fixing  of  a  Second  Person.  It  is  the  portrait  of  a 
man:  of  a  man  claiming  to  be  divine ;  of  a  man, 
actually  God  in  the  incarnation  of  the  whole  of  Deity ; 
but  a  man  not  ceasing  to  be  man  ;  and  therefore, 
when  stating  his  equality  with  God,  exquisite  in  his 
speech,  and  ca.refully  reserving  respects  in  which  he 
has  still  humanity. 

But  we  must  not  make  these  sections  too  long. 

§  12.   The  Angel  of  JchovaJi. 

We  think  that  the  angel  of  Jehovah  was  a  com- 
mon angel,  sent  on  the  errands  of  the  Most  High. 
We  believe  so  for  one  very  strong  reason,  that  the 
Apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  the  incarnation  of  Christ, 
speaks  in  this  wise,  "  He  does  not  sure  enough  take 
on  angels,  but  he  does  take  on  the  seed  of  Abraham" 
(Heb.  ii :  16).  That  scatters  difficulty  at  a  breath. 
He  seemed  to  be  actually  an  angel.     That  was  his 


no  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

appearance.  He  seemed  to  be  actually  a  man.  But 
he  makes  a  vast  discrimination.  He  did  not  sure 
enough  take  on  an  angel ;  or,  to  make  it  more  true 
to  the  history,  any  of  them  (plural),  for  he  appeared 
in  many, — but  he  did  take  on  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
And  we  are  to  understand  that  he  employed  angels, 
and  that  they  personated  him  often  ;  but  that  he 
became  incarnate  in  the  Son  ;  and  that  he  had,  there- 
fore, that  sure-enough  union,  which  a  peculiar  Greek 
word  {dcpoii)  denies  in  the  other  case. 

If  any  one  asks.  Is  that  your  only  passage  ?  I  say. 
No.  Look  at  the  last  chapter  of  Revelation.  The 
angel,  there,  rejects  the  worship  of  the  Apostle  (v.  9), 
and,  yet,  the  next  moment  personates  the  Redeemer. 
*'  See  thou  do  it  not,"  he  says  in  the  ninth  verse,  and 
in  the  twelfth,  "  Behold  I  come  quickly."  This  is 
the  manner  of  angels.  They  did  so  at  Sodom  (Gen. 
xviii :  2,  13).  They  did  so  with  Hagar(Gen.  xvi :  7, 
13),  and  Lot  (Gen.  xix:  i,  21)  ;  and  one  did  so  under 
the  oakat  Ophrah  (Jud.  vi :  11,  16,20).  Our  persua- 
sion is,  that  the  "  man  "  who  was  singled  out  as  Je- 
hovah, was  a  common  angel.  And  if  any  one  asks, 
How  dare  he  personate  God,  I  answer.  How  dare  the 
prophets  ?  (O^hler,  Theol.  O.  T.,  §  60) ;  or,  as  a  most 
satisfying  instance,  how  dare  Moses  ?  for  most  un- 
doubtedly he  says,  ''  I  will  give  you  the  rain  of  your 
land  in  his  due  season,  the  first  rain  and  the  latter 
rain"(Deut.  xi :  14)  ;  and  most  undoubtedly  he  de- 
clares, ''  I  will  send  grass  in  thy  fields  for  thy  cattle, 
that  thou  mayest  eat  and  be  full"  (v  15). 

The  fact  is,  it  makes  the  slenderest  sort  of  differ- 
ence whether  it  was  an  angel  or  not.     If  it  was  an 


God  the  Son.  m 

angel,  God  appeared  in  him,  and  spoke  by  him,  and 
wrought  miracles  by  his  mouth  ;  and,  moreover,  gave 
him  a  human  form,  and  wrought  that  miracle  in  the 
very  act  of  sending  him.  If  it  was  not  an  angel,  still 
it  was  a  human  form  ;  and  it  seems  to  make  not  the 
smallest  difference.  If  it  were  the  Son  of  God,  it 
would  not  be  his  body  ;  nobody  pretends  that.  And 
if  it  were  a  body,  God,  personally  in  it,  and  repre- 
senting himself  by  it,  would  be  so  like  stretching  out 
his  arm  (Deut.  v  :  15),  as  to  preclude  every  possibility 
of  Trinitarian  demonstration. 

So  the  matter  stands,  therefore.  We  believe  that 
they  were  angels :  but  it  is  unimportant.  We  believe 
that  they  were  angels,  because  the  Apostle  speaks 
so,  and  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  ministry 
of  angels  and  the  ministry  of  Christ  (Acts  vii :  53  ; 
Gal.  iii :  19).  We  believe  that  they  were  angels,  be- 
cause Moses  deprecated  such  a  convoy,  and  pled  so 
hard  for  the  presence  of  God  (Ex.  xxxih  :  2,  12-15); 
which  surely  would  be  nothing  higher  than  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ.  We  believe  that  they  were  angels, 
out  of  deference  to  the  straight-forwardness  of  speech. 
But  grant  that  they  were  anything  you  please.  They 
cannot  be  built  into  a  hypostatic  argumentation  ;  for 
the  rhetoric  must  remain  indifferent.  To  send  an 
angel,  or  to  send  an  apparition,  or  to  send  a  dream,  or 
to  send  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  would  be 
all  covered  under  the  very  same  miracle,  and  there 
could  be  no  possible  distinction  that  could  breed  a 

sjoning. 

Now,  one  thing  more. 

26 


112  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

§  13.  The  Son  as  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

Christ  is  distinctly  called  the  Father  (Is.  ix  :  6 , 
Jo.  xiv:  9).  He  is  distinctly  called  the  Son  (Rom. 
i:  3).  He  is  distinctly  called  the  Holy  Ghost  (Jo. 
xiv  :  18  ;  2  Cor.  iii :  17).  We  close  the  chapter  with 
that  appeal  to  the  inspired  rhetoric.  He  is  not  called 
so,  often  ;  for  that  would  spoil  the  figures  ;  just  as 
the  '*  heart"  is  not  called  "  mind"  always  or  often, 
but  only  sometimes,  because  it  is  convenient  to  keep 
them  separate.  So  the  words  for  the  Almighty  are 
not  endlessly  confused ;  but  sufficiently  mixed  to 
keep  them  from  mystic  handHng. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
God    the    Father. 

§  I.  Meaning  of  the  Name. 

Paul  says,  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto 
the  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  all 
fatherhood  in  heaven  and  upon  earth  is  named" 
(Eph.  iii:  14,  15).  This  immediately  sets  a  Father- 
hood up  which  ought  to  have  a  bold  and  original 
signification.  What  is  it?  Either  a  fatherhood  of 
man,  or  a  fatherhood  of  God.  I  mean  by  that,  the 
Bible  is  an  extended  revelation,  and  it  ought  very 
quickly  to  appear  whether  the  Fatherhood  that  gives 
pattern  to  all  the  fatherhoods  of  the  world,  is  a  fa- 
therhood of  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity,  or  a 
fatherhood  of  men  ;  in  other  words,  whether  God  was 
a  Father  from    eternity,  or  a  Father  in   time ;  the 


God  the  Father.  113 

Son,  in  the  one  case,  being  an  Eternal  Person,  and 
the  Son,  in  the  other,  being  the  Nazarenc  ;  the 
agreement  in  either  case  being  that  angels  (Job 
xxxviii :  7),  and  men  (Acts  xvii :  28),  are  sons  of  the 
same  Fatherhood,  on  earth  and  in  the  heavens. 

Now,  how  could  we  settle  such  a  thing?  All 
agree  that  it  is  not  debated  in  the  Bible.  Indeed, 
this  is  but  one  of  very  singular  agreements.  The 
Trinitarian  agrees  that  his  doctrine  is  nowhere  for- 
mulated. He  goes  further.  He  says,  its  language 
is  not  in  the  Bible.  He  often  complains  of  it.  Cal- 
vin wished  the  word  Trinity  had  never  been  in- 
vented. Not  only  is  the  word  Trinity  made  up,  but 
the  word  Person.  Hiipostasis  is  even  laughably  mis- 
translated. Not  only  does  it  never  occur  in  the  Bi- 
ble to  teach  a  Trinity;  but  it  could  not.  It  means 
a  substance.  The  only  case  in  which  it  ever  occurs 
of  the  Almighty,  it  is  mistranslated,  appearing  as 
"  person" — "  the  express  image  of  his  person"  (Heb. 
i-  3) — when  it  means  '*  his  substance  ;"  so  that  the 
very  terminology  of  the  scheme  awakens  a  suspicion. 
There  is  no  term.  Trinity.  There  is  no  dream  of 
connecting  it  with  anything  that  can  be  translated 
Person ;  there  is  no  terminology  of  it  as  a  faith ; 
there  is  no  controversy  about  it  as  of  the  creed  ;  and 
there  is  no  mode  of  settling  it,  except  in  that  "  Horae 
PauHns"  way,  that  hovers  about  the  casualties  of  the 
expression. 

Nevertheless,  shut  down  to  this,  we  offer  this  ar- 
gument. 

Consult  a  Concordance. 

In  the  instance  of  a  comet,  do  we  consider  the 


114  ^-^^^  Trinity  and  Scripture, 

tail  as  evolving  the  head,  or  the  head  as  evolving  the 
tail? 

Turn  up  the  word  Father  in  a  Concordance. 
Observe  it.  Where  does  it  centre  ?  and  where  does 
its  great  idea  rally  ?  It  is  never  used  of  God  but 
eight  times  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  It  is  never  used 
except  as  of  his  fatherhood  of  man  save  once,  and 
then  it  is  prophetic  of  the  Anointed  Man,  Our  Sa- 
viour, the  blessed  Redeemer  (Ps.  Ixxxix  :  26).  It  is 
never  used  of  an  anterior  Fatherhood  a  single  time. 
And  yet  when  we  come  to  the  New,  the  page  fairly 
glitters  with  the  glorious  appellation. 

It  is  never  used  of  God's  fatherhood  other  than 
as  connected  with  a  creature. 

And  if  any  body  says.  That  is  assuming  every- 
thing, I  speak  more  carefully.  I  do  not  deny  that 
if  Christ  was  begotten  from  eternity  it  may  be  con- 
sistent with  New  Testament  texts.  But  we  are  speak- 
ing now  oi evidence.  It  will  not  do  endlessly  to  empty 
from  one  mere  consistency  to  another.  We  are  look- 
ing for  the  bush  where  the  Trinity  turns  upon  its 
pursuers  and  rends  them.  I  say  that  the  Fatherhood 
of  God  is  never  said  to  be  eternal.  By  a  strange  oc- 
currence in  the  prophet,  "  The  Everlasting  Father" 
is  Jesus  Christ  himself  (Is.  ix  :  6).  Sonship  or  filia- 
tion, as  of  eternity,  would  have  been  distinctly  men- 
tioned. It  is  impossible  that  a  grand  reality  would 
have  been  slighted.  And  now,  coupling-on  the  main 
argument,  it  is  this  : — That  the  big  letters  in  a  Con- 
cordance, scattered  like  the  rarest  stars  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and,  when  they  do  occur,  centring,  in  3 
far  off  way,  in  the  manger  in  Bethlehem  ;  and  then 


God  the  Father,  115 

spangling  the  whole  heavens  in  the  New  Testament 
revelation, — is  as  near  a  proof  as  it  admits,  that  the 
Fatherhood  of  God  was  not  of  a  Logos  other  than  as 
of  an  earth-born  Son,  the  same  in  substance  equal 
in  power  and  glory. 

§  2.  No  Name  or  Work  Sacred  to  One  Person. 

And  the  same  line  of  remark  may  be  made  in  re- 
spect to  the  functions  of  the  Trinity.  Controversial- 
ists are  fond  of  saying,  There  is  no  formula,  it  is  true  ; 
there  is  no  controversy  waged  in  the  Bible.  But, 
then,  the  facts  are  there.  There  is  no  gravity  writ- 
ten in  the  heavens  ;  but,  then,  those  far  off  stars  bear 
the  facts  of  it  written  on  their  foreheads.  There  is 
no  herald  of  the  forest, — This  is  an  oak,  and,  This  is 
an  ash  :  nor  is  there  any  schedule  of  the  sense,  pro- 
claiming the  eye  or  the  ear:  but  those  functionaries 
stand  out,  just  as  the  stars  shine  down.  And  so,  it 
may  be  said,  Hypostases  are  not  labelled  ;  nor  are 
they  discussed  in  a  doctrinal  way  ;  but  there  they  are. 
And  the  functions  of  creation,  redemption  and  sanc- 
tification  mark  their  boundary,  and,  like  the  facts  in 
physics,  we  are  to  collate  and  make  their  theory 
appear. 

But,  alas  for  the  most  candid  seeker!  there  is 
the  very  difficulty.  The  stars  wear  their  livery  in 
heaven,  and  never  change  it.  And  so  of  the  tree. 
The  oak  is  never  an  ash.  And,  in  the  region  of  sense, 
the  eye  never  listens,  and  the  ear  never  looks,  and 
the  heart  never  breathes.  But,  in  this  most  impor- 
tant of  all  doctrines  as  many  men  declare,  how  are 
we  treated  ?   There  is  no  theory.    That  we  must  give 


ii6  The  Trinity  and  Scripture, 

up  at  once  :  though  Paul  pronounces  some  very  strict 
theories  as  to  morals  (Rom.  xiii :  8-10 ;  i  Cor.  v  :  9- 
11),  and  as  to  the  covenants  of  life  (Rom.  v:  12-21). 
Moreover,  there  is  no  controversy,  and  there  is  no 
elenchtic  discussion,  to  give  the  theory  shape.  The 
facts  occur  in  the  Bible  world,  like  stars  upon  the 
heavens.  But,  now,  mark  the  difficulty.  There  is  no 
persistency  in  them.  He  who  is  called  Creator  to-day, 
is  called  Sanctifier  to-morrow.  There  is  not  the  abid- 
ing law,  even  of  a  well  pursued  emblem.  The  Father 
is  called  the  Son,  and  the  Son  is  called  the  Father. 
Both  are  repeatedly  declared  to  be  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And,  when  it  comes  to  function,  the  Father  is  called 
the  Redeemer,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  acts  as  King 
(Acts  xvi :  6,  7),  and  Jesus  Christ  is  the  electing 
Head  (Jo.  xiii:  18;  xv  :  19),  and  the  divine  Father 
becomes  the  Sanctifier  of  the  saints  (Jo.  vii :  17)  and, 
with  Christ,  the  Quickener  and  the  Purifier  (Jo.  v  : 
21)  ;  with  nothing  functional  left,  as  the  mark-manual 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

For  example,  Isaiah,  in  his  glorious  prophecy, 
says,  "  I  Jehovah  am  thy  Saviour,  and  thy  Redeemer, 
the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob"  (Is.  xlix :  26  ;  repeated  Ix : 
16).  "Thus  saith  Jehovah,  thy  Redeemer,"  is  one 
of  his  favorite  appeals  (Is.  xlviii :  17  ;  liv:  8).  He  is 
spoken  of  as  Jehovah,  the  Redeemer,  at  the  very 
time  when  there  is  introduced,  also,  into  the  prophecy 
the  anticipated  Sacrifice  (Is.  xlix  :  7). 

In  Paul  we  read,  ''  The  very  God  of  peace  sanc- 
tify you  wholly"  (i  Thess.  v:  23):  in  Jude,  "To 
them  that  are  sanctified  by  God  the  Father"  (Jude 
i)  ;  in  Paul  again,  "  That  he  (Christ)  might  sanctify 


God  the  FatJicr.  117 

and  cleanse  it"  (Eph.  v:  26):  and  in  the  Hebrews, 
*'  Both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are  sancti- 
fied, are  all  of  One"  (Heb.  ii :   11). 

Then,  as  to  Election,  **  Ye  have  not  chosen  me, 
but  I  have  chosen  you"  (Jo  xv:  16).  And,  if  choice 
of  officers  could  be  considered  distinctive  of  the 
Father,  then  we  have  this  sentence,  "The  Holy 
Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  the 
work  to  which  I  have  called  them"  (Acts  xiii :  2) ; 
again,  "  take  heed  to  the  flock  over  the  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers"  (Acts  xx  : 
28)  :  and  now,  once  more,  throwing  into  new  confu- 
sion even  such  a  distinctive  office  as  the  atonement, 
— *'  Feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood"  (ib.). 

But  let  us  look  at  some  of  these  things  more 
distinctly. 

§  3.  The  Father  as  Son. 

Paul  says,  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justi- 
fied in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the 
Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into 
glory"  (i  Tim.  iii :   16). 

These  texts  are  contraband.  A  theory  of  the 
Trinity  is,  that  each  of  the  Hypostases,  in  turn,  is 
separately  God. 

We  are  driven,  therefore,  to  texts  that  will  say, 
in  terms,  that  the  Son  is  the  Father.  Now,  as  there 
could  be  a  rhetorical  prediction  that  the  book  would 
not  so  falsify  its  tropes  as  to  have  such  a  sentence, 
we  wish  to  be  understood  as  understanding  the  true 


Ii8  The  Trinity  and  Scriptiij'c. 

nature  of  the  hardship  under  which  we  Hve  in  the 
debate. 

Still,  many  passages  come  near  this  very  thing. 
Isaiah  says,  the  child  is  the  "  Everlasting  Father." 
Christ  says,  '*  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  He  says, 
*'  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father."  He 
speaks  of  the  Comforter  coming ;  and  then  he  says, 
*'  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless,  /will  come  to  you" 
(Jo.  xiv  :  i8).  And  then,  in  another  covert  but  un- 
mistakable way,  he  cuts  off  from  himself  the  possi- 
biUty  of  having  a  separate  Divine  Hypostasis,  by 
never  mentioning  it :  in  a  long  theological  discussion 
he  never  realizes  that.  He  speaks  of  himself,  and 
then  he  speaks  of  his  Father.  He  speaks  of  himself 
as  weak,  whenever  separated  from  his  Father  (Jo.  v : 
19,  30).  He  never  speaks  of  an  Eternal  Son.  On 
the  contrary,  he  says,  ''  I  live  by  the  Father"  (Jo. 
vi :  57).  He  says,  "  Of  that  day  knoweth  no  man, 
but  the  Father"(Matt.  xiii :  32).  He  says,  ''  Father, 
into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit"  (Matt,  xxiii : 
46).  He  is  said,  *'  by  the  Eternal  Spirit  [to  have] 
offered  himself  without  spot  to  God"  (Heb.  ix  :  14) ; 
not  by  the  Eternal  Logos.  He  never  lisps  of  a  sepa- 
rate Person  to  stand  by  him,  and  to  BE  he  in  all 
manner  of  administration.  He  ties  himself  to  the 
Father.  He  says,  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  but 
what  he  seeth  the  Father  do"  (Jo.  v  ;  19).  We  hear 
of  "  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
glory""  (Eph.  i :  17) ;  of  "  eternal  Hfe  which  was  with 
the  Father"  (i  Jo.  i :  2) ;  and  evermore  of  just  such 
things  as  we  should  wish  to  have,  if  what  Ignatius 

*  Why  not  for  once  end  that  sentence — "  The  Eternal  Son"? 


God  the  Father.  119 

says  were  true,  that  **  God  himself  was  manifested 
in  human  form  for  the  renewal  of  eternal  life"  (Ig.  p. 
167 ;  Clarks'  Ed.) ;  that  "  He  is  the  mouth,  altogether 
free,  by  which  the  Father  truly  spoke ;"  **  that  he  is 
in  the  Father  ;"  and  that  this  "  is  all  the  more  re- 
vealed," the  more  we  watch  the  pages  of  revelation 
(Ig.  p.  211). 

The  difficulties  are  futile.  De  Pressense  says, 
*'  It  is  simply  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  Father, 
in  all  the  glory  of  his  Godhead,  can  have  been  en- 
shrined in  Jesus,  leaving  as  it  were  the  throne  of 
heaven  empty"  {Her.  and  Chris.  Doct.  p.  141).  We 
feel  helped  by  such  a  cavil.  That  is,  God  cannot  be 
enshrined  in  a  lily,  without  leaving  the  throne  of 
heaven  empty ! 

Let  us  pass  on. 

§  4.  TJie  Father  as  Spirit. 

Now,  as  before ;  we  cannot  expect  to  have  much 
writing  that  shall  say,  "  The  Father  is  the  Spirit;  " 
for  the  Father  is  God,  and  the  Spirit  is  the  Breath  of 
God,  with  more  or  less  subjectivity  of  rhetoric.  We 
cannot  feign  to  ourselves  the  Almighty's  "  Arm," 
unless  the  figure  is  true  to  us,  and  keeps  up,  on  oc- 
casions of  its  use,  a  good  degree  of  tropical  con- 
sistency. 

But,  bereft  of  theory,  and  of  any  illustrative  pole- 
mic, and  now,  as  it  appears,  of  much  departure  from 
the  emblem, — see  what  we  do  encounter.  Jesus 
Christ  says,  ''  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will 
not  come  unto  you  ;  but,  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him 
unto  you"  (Jo.  xvi :  f) ;  and  then  he  says,  **  How- 


120  Tlic   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

belt,  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will 
guide  you  into  all  truth  :  for  he  shall  not  speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he 
speak;  and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come.  He 
shall  glorify  me  :  for  he  shall  take*  of  mine,  and  shall 
show  it  unto  you"  (vs.  13,  14):  and  then,  without 
any  intervening  text,  **  All  things  that  the  Father 
hath  are  mine  ;  therefore  said  I,  that  He  shall  take 
of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you"  (v.  15).  I  say, 
It  would  be  impossible,  if  there  were  a  great  under- 
lying Trinity,  that  our  Saviour,  so  grammatical  in  all 
his  speeches,  should  drop  this  stitch  in  his  discourse; 
and  I  am  the  more  confirmed  of  it,  because  he  then 
had  done  it  previously. 

Let  us  look  into  another  chapter. 

He  says,  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with 
you  forever;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth;  whom  the 
world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not, 
neither  knoweth  him  :  but  ye  know  him  ;  for  he 
dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you"  (Jo.  xiv :  16, 
17):  and  then,  without  the  least  reverence  for  the 
Trinity,  he  adds,  "/will  not  leave  you  comfortless: 
/will  come  to  you"  (v,  18);  and  then,  a  little  after, 
''  We  will  come"  to  you  (v.  23),  referring  to  the 
Father. 

Now,  put  all  these  things  together.  Remember, 
we  have  been  told,  '*  The  Lord  is  that  Spirit"(2  Cor. 
iii  :  17).  Remember  we  have  been  told,  ''  Spirit  is 
God"  (Jo.  iv:  24).   Remember  that  it  has  been  said, 

*  "  Receive"  E.  V.)  ;  but  the  Greek  is  the  same  as  in  the  fifteenth 
verse. 


God  the  Father.  121 

Christ  liveth  in  us  (Gal.  ii :  20)  ;  and  again,  The 
Spirit  hveth  in  us  (i  Cor.  xiii:  16);  and  again,  God 
is  in  us  of  a  truth  (i  Cor.  xiv:  25).  Remember  that 
Gabriel  says, ''  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee"  (Lu.  i :  35),  and  does  not  stop  to  declare  a 
difference.  Remember  that  the  Psalmist  speaks  of 
"  the  word  of  God"  and  of  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  and 
gives  them  the  same  work  in  the  same  sentence  (Ps. 
xxxiii :  6)  ;  that  Christ  speaks  of  "  the  Spirit  ol 
God,"  in  one  report  of  his  speech  (Matt,  xii  :  28), 
and  of ''  the  finger  of  God"  in  another  (Lu.  xi  :  20)  ; 
that  Paul  speaks  of  the  Spirit  of  God  and  of  power 
(i  Cor.  ii :  4)  :  put  all  these  things  together ;  and  I 
will  insist,  that,  considering  the  decencies  of  the 
trope,  there  is  more,  rather  than  less,  invasion  of  it, 
than  its  strict  trope-character  would  idiomatically 
portend. 

§  5.   The  Father  as  Jehovah. 

At  this  very  late  period  in  our  discussion,  we 
bring  forward  an  idea,  which  might  seem  to  have 
deserved  to  be  the  centraHzing  one  in  our  whole  in- 
vestigation. It  refers  to  the  meaning  of  Jehovah. 
This  word  has  excited  immense  attention.  Among 
the  books  that  have  been  written  on  this  sole  subject, 
none  have  been  so  successful,  as  to  narrow,  in  the 
least  degree,  the  domain  of  doubt.  Some  things  have 
been  agreed  ;  but  they  have  been  for  a  long  time 
agreed  :  and  some  things  are  in  doubt  ;  but  they  are 
the  things  that  have  always  been  in  doubt ;  I  mean 
within  the  historic  period,  or  that  compass  of  time 
6 


122  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

that  hides  us  from  the  mind  of  those  that  actually 
received  the  Pentateuch. 

Now,  what  are  the  things  agreed  ?  The  things 
agreed  are,  first,  that  Jehovah  was  the  proper  name  of 
God  ;  second,  that  the  Jews  were  afraid  to  pronounce 
it ;  third,  that  they  used  instead,  Adonai,  which  our 
translators,  with  a  singular  compliance  with  the  super- 
stition, have  rendered  "  Lord"  ;  fourth,  that  nothing 
is  to  be  learned  from  the  vowels  in  the  name,  be- 
cause they  are  the  vowels  of  Adonai  ;  and,  fifth,  that 
if  we  could  trace  the  consonants,  that  would  be  the 
most  hopeful  track  for  expounding  the  signification. 

Now,  singularly  enough,  the  consonants  are  not 
so  difficult. 

Let  me  premise  :  Devas,  and  other  Indian  deriva- 
tions (De  Wette,  L  p.  183),  or,  to  sum  it  all  up  in  a 
single  word,  all  tracings  of  the  term  to  languages 
{ScJiillcrs  Heb.  Myst.),  or  to  mythologic  forms  {see 
Bib,  Rcpos.,  No.  13),  outside  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
have  been  confessedly  {Von  Colin  ilbcr  die  Thcokra  :) 
illusory  and  vain.  We  are  thrown  back  upon  the 
Hebrew:  and  here,  strange  to  say,  there  lies  nearest 
to  our  sight,  and  not  without  categorical  suggestion 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  a  strict  and  most 
striking  signification. 

Let  me  expound  it. 

Moses  said,  when  he  was  commanded  to  go  into 
Egypt,  *'  Behold,  when  I  come  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  shall  say  unto  them.  The  God  of  your 
fathers  hath  sent  me  unto  you  ;  and  they  shall  say 
to  me.  What  is  his  name?  what  shall  I  say  to  them? 


God  the  Father.  123 

And  God  said  unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am"  (Ex. 
iii:   14). 

I  was  reading  this  carelessly  some  months  ago, 
and  suddenly  there  flashed  up  before  me  the  future 
form  of  it.  I  was  perfectly  amazed.  I  seized  upon 
the  commentaries,  and  they  recognized  the  fact  ;  but 
languidly;  and  with  a  learned  exposition  how  the 
future  was  more  a  tense  for  EXISTENCE  than  the 
Hebrew  past.  But  instantly  I  seized  the  Concor- 
dance, and  I  could  scarce  find  one  future  of  the  verb 
to  be^  that  did  not  mean  the  future  ;  and  I  found  no 
cause  at  all  for  such  a  grammatic  prepossession.  I 
soon  lit  up  the  sentence  with  its  own  legitimately 
relumined  lights  :  and,  now,  read  the  result : — "What 
is  his  name  ?  And  God  said  unto  Moses,  I  SHALL 
BE  THAT  I  SHALL  BE  :  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
I  SHALL  BE  hath  sent  me  unto  you." 

Now  it  is  but  three  chapters  off,  when  there  comes 
another  discussion.  "  I  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God 
Almighty ;  but  by  the  name  Jehovah  was  I  not  known 
to  them"  (Ex.  vi :  3). 

We  glance  at  the  name  ;  and  the  unmistakable 
similarity  arrests  us  instantly.  "  I  SHALL  BE"  (Ex. 
iii :  14)  is  the  first  person  singular  future,  and  Je- 
hovah is  the  third  person  singular  future,  of  the  same 
word,  in  the  same  exact  shape,  in  the  same  unmis- 
takable use,  and,  beyond  all  question  to  me  now, 
with  the  same  meaning. 

It  maybe  asked.  Why  has  this  been  hid  ?     It  has 

not   been  altogether  hid   I  find   upon  investigation 

{see  Bib.Repos.,  No.  13)  ;  but  the  reasons  why  it  has 
27 


124  ^^^^   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

not  been  intelligently  accepted,  seem,  first,  that  it 
has  not  fallen  into  appreciative  hands.  The  great 
glory  of  Heaven,  in  view  of  the  SHALL  BE  when  the 
Manhood  should  be  taken  in,  had  not  met  with  ap- 
propriate favor.  Let  me  mention  further :  Jehovah 
is  an  old  name,  older,  pcrJiaps,  than  that  saying  to 
Moses  ;  and  the  verb  is  in  an  old  form.  The  com- 
mon Hebrew  for  the  verb  to  be,  is  hayah.  The  older 
Hebrew  is  Jiavah,  The  Hebrew  in  the  speech  to 
Moses,  is  the  later  and  more  common  form.  The 
Hebrew  in  the  other  would  be  the  earlier.  This  is 
as  we  might  expect ;  but  then  its  more  unaccustomed 
look,  and  the  confusing  of  everything  by  the  foreign 
vowels,  have  laid  a  veil  upon  the  meaning.  Jehovah 
says, ''  EJiyeh  esJier  EhyeJi.''  Jehovah's  name,  brought 
down  to  what  was  originally  inspired,  is  "  JehvckJ" 
The  differences  are  but  two :  one  is  the  later  form 
of  the  verb,  and  the  first  person  singular:  the  other 
is  the  earHer  form  of  the  verb,  and  the  third  person 
singular.  Would  that  all  riddles  could  be  pressed  as 
close  !  One  means,  I  SHALL  BE  WHAT  I  SHALL  BE. 
And  the  other  means,  HE  SHALL  BE,  as  the  great 
name  of  God.  And  to  us,  in  our  present  mind,  of 
course,  it  falls  as  a  glorious  confirmation.  It  may  be 
asked,  Why  did  you  not  state  it  in  the  very  preface  ? 
I  answer,  Lest  it  should  give  an  air  of  visionariness 
to  all  the  book.  I  would  rather  build  upon  the  very 
commonest  ideas.  But  now  in  the  superstructure, 
havin"-  refused  to  allow  it  to  be  in  the  base  of  the 
building,  it  smiles  upon  us  with  peculiar  beauty. 
God  was  always  perfect  ;  and,  in  his  power,  he  was 
entire;  and,  in  his   unity,  he  was   complete.     There 


God  the  Father. 


125 


were  no  gods  beside  him  ;  and,  in  our  belief,  there 
was  no  triph'city  in  his  person.  But  there  was  one 
thing  wanting  to  his  work  ;  and  that  was,  union  with 
humanity.  Though  he  might  be  known,  in  rolling 
the  stars,  as  God  Almighty ;  yet  when  he  came  to 
the  Iron  Furnace,  and  to  the  region  and  to  the  period 
of  grace,  he  needed  more.  He  must  prophesy  there 
of  himself,  *'  I  SHALL  BE."  He  must  be  known  by 
others  as  HE  SHALL  BE.  '*  This  is  my  name,  and 
this  is  my  remembrance,"  he  says.  And  he  could 
not  build  a  foot  of  earth,  or  save  a  lost  soul,  but 
on  the  faith  of  Jehovah  ;  on  the  bottom  of  that 
ordained  Theanthropy,  that  was  to  be  the  base  of 
the  whole  creation. 

§  6.  The  Father  and  His  Glory. 

Lit  up  by  this  view  of  Jehveh,  and  reading  some 
passages  where  the  word  is  found,  as  for  example,  "  I 
am  He  shall  be  ;  that  is  my  name  ;  and  my  glory 
will  I  not  give  to  another"  (Is.  xlii:  8);  or  again,"  I, 
even  I,  am  He  SHALL  BE ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no 
Saviour"  (xliii :  11);  or,  *' I  am  He  shall  be,  your 
Holy  One,  the  Creator  of  Israel,  your  King"  (v.  15) : 
hunting  up  some  of  the  more  salient  uses  of  this  en- 
titlement, and  then  remembering,  This  is  the  Whole 
Jehovah,  and  yet  Jehovah  confessing  that  it  must 
needs  be  that  he  come  in  the  flesh  :  taking  this  case, 
— *'  Before  me  there  was  no  God  shaped,  neither 
shall  there  be  after  me"  (v.  10)  ;  and  understanding 
that  to  mean,  not  ismply  that  there  was  no  God,  but 
no  administrative  Father,  except  the  SHALL  BE  who 


126  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

was  to  be  made  complete  in  Jesus  Christ :  and  that, 
therefore,  the  triumph  is  to  be  understood  when  it  was 
known  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God  (Rom.  ix :  5),  or, 
as  it  is  expressed  in  the  PhiHppians,  when  *'  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  the  Lord  is  Jesus  Christ" 
(Phil,  ii :  1 1) — putting  all  these  things  together, — we 
learn  to  appreciate  the  word  Glory,  which  did  exist 
from,  eternity,  and  was  the  essential  fact  with  the 
Lord  Jesus.  Had  he  been  a  Hypostasis,  he  would 
have  talked  more  of  that ;  but  the  GLORY  that  he 
had  with  \chez,  Fr.]  the  Father — that  it  is  that  fills 
his  eye.  Jesus,  as  man,  was  nothing.  That  he  says 
ever  (Jo.  v:  19,  30;  viii :  28).  Jesus,  as  God,  was 
everything.  And,  therefore,  the  best  part  of  Jesus 
was  his  Glory,  viz.,  that  which  gave  him  a  Spirit, 
and  a  righteousness,  and  a  power,  and  a  Kingship, 
and  an  eternity,  which  were  the  essential  prerequi- 
sites of  his  whole  sacrifice  for  the  lost. 

Listen,  therefore,  how  that  word  occurs. 

''Glorify  me,  O  Father,  with  thine  own  self* 
(The  word  para  is  more  like  in  than  it  is  like  '*  ivithy 
The  French  cliez  is  almost  its  exact  counterpart.) 
"  with  the  glory  that  I  had  with  {cJiez)  thee  before 
the  world  was"  (Jo.  xvii :  5)  ;  ''  that  is,  that  I  had  as 
He  shall  be  before  the  birth  of  my  humanity. 
Being  "  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father"  (Rom.  vi :  4).  "  Who  being  the  brightness 
of  his  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  substance" 
(Heb.  i :  3).  "  Who  gave  him  glory"  (i  Pet.  i :  21). 
**  The  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ"  (2  Cor.  iv;  6). 


God  the  Father.  127 

§  7.    TJie  Baptismal  Formula. 

The  acknowledgment  having  been  in  recent 
times  arrived  at,  that  the  sentence  in  First  John, 
*'  There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost"  (i  Jo.  v  :  7),  is 
an  interpolation,  the  passage  next  in  order  in  popu- 
lar impressiveness  is  that  in  Matthew,  *'  Baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Indeed,  this  is  so  wide  a  formula,  and  has  been 
printed  on  our  ear,  so,  since  infancy,  that  perhaps 
every  body  turns  to  it  the  soonest,  when  their  faith 
in  the  existence  of  a  Trinity  is  the  least  endan- 
gered. 

1.  Let  me  say,  first,  that  this  was  not  in  such 
sense  a  formula,  that  the  church  was  bound  by  it, 
or,  in  other  words,  as  that  we  ever  hear  of  it,  after- 
wards, as  of  the  practice  of  the  Apostles.  Were  it  a 
rigid  formula,  the  argument  would,  of  course,  be 
greater.  But,  instead  of  that,  we  hear  of  two  acts  of 
baptism,  and,  in  each   of  them,  the  person  who  was 

'baptized,   was   baptized   in   the   name   of  the  Lord 
Jesus  (Acts  ii  :  38;  xix:  5). 

2.  But,  secondly,  it  may  be  asked.  Why  a  plu- 
rality 'of  names  at  all  ?  Why  not  say,  Baptize  in  the 
name  of  God  ?  To  which  I  respond.  Why  not  say, 
Believe  in  Christ?  Christ  does  say,  He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  the  Son  (Jo.  vi :  40),  and  Paul  does  speak 
of*' him  which  beheveth  in  Jesus"  (Rom.  iii :  26): 
why  need  Peter  leap  into  a  wider  formula  ?  and  why 
does  he  say  so  carefully,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus 


128  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house  ?" 
(Acts  xvi  :  31). 

In  fact,  why  does  it  say  "  name"  ?  Why  does  it 
not'  say  names?  If  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
are  hypostatically  different,  they  may  be  the  same  in 
substance,  and  yet  difference  of  Persons  would  emi- 
nently discredit  the  singular,  "  name."  Our  blessed 
Lord  was  God  and  man.  As  "  Lord,"  he  was  the 
Greek  for  Jehovah;  as  "Jesus"  he  was  Jehovah  a 
Saviour ;  as  Christ,  he  was  an  Anointed  Man.  In  either 
of  the  three  appellatives,  there  was  a  distinct  idea ; 
but  who  says  that  beUeving  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  anything  but  believing  in  the  one  Emmanuel? 

3.  But,  it  will  be  said ;  and  this  is  by  far  the 
strongest  consideration, — The  Son  /^different;  and, 
therefore,  the  same  may  be  argued  in  respect  to  the 
Spirit.  No  man  imagines  Jesus  to  be  different  from 
Christ ;  but  men  do  imagine  the  Father  to  be  dif- 
ferent from  the  Son.  The  Son  is  weak(Heb.  v:  2). 
The  Son  prays  (Lu.  xxii  :  44).  The  Son  is  man  (Mar. 
vi :  3).  The  Son  dies  (Matt,  xxvii :  50) ;  and  does 
what  the  Father  could  not  do.  Whatever  may  be 
said  of  the  Spirit,  no  one  denies  that  the  Father  is 
different  from  the  Son  :  and  why  then,  in  the  Baptis- 
mal Formula,  do  we  not  have  a  like  discrepance 
imagined  for  the  Spirit. 

Now  we  have  shown  that  the  Son,  as  God,  is  one 
in  substance  with  the  Father.  We  are  talking  of 
theories  now,  not  reahties.  The  implication  is,  that 
we  are  contradicting  our  own  theory.  But  let  it  be 
remembered  that,  on  the  side  of  God,  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are,  with  us,  but  One  Person.     If  it  says, 


God  the  Father.  129 

Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  means  in  the  One  Glorious 
Name  {sing}),  enthroned  as  the  Father,  enshrined 
as  the  Son,  and  engrafted  as  the  Holy  Ghost. 

We  see  no  difficulty.  There  is  but  one  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  :  and  if  any  one  says, 
Yes,  but  Jesus  Christ,  as  Son,  has  passed  into  very 
different  relations  from  the  Father ;  and  the  argu- 
ment be  pressed,  that  the  discrepance  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son  seems  to  imply  a  like  mysteri- 
ous discrepance  between  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  I  take  issue  even  with  that,  as  a  fact  im- 
plied in  the  mere  enumerations  of  a  formula. 

For  example,  take  this  text, — ''  Your  whole  spirit 
and  soul  and  body"  (i  Thess.  v  :  23).  Does  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  certain  discrepance  between  the  soul 
and  body,  prove,  on  the  faith  of  this  enumeration, 
that  there  is  a  hke  discrepance  between  the  soul  and 
the  spirit?  Or,  take  this  text,  "  God,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  angels"  (i  Tim.  v:  21). 
Does  the  fact  that  angels  differ  from  God,  show  that 
there  is  a  like  discrepance  between  Christ  and  God  ? 
In  fact,  is  there  any  proof  in  the  matter  ?  When 
Allen  cried  out,  ""  God  and  the  Continental  Con- 
gress" ;  or,  when  the  history  tells  us,  "  They  feared 
the  Lord  and  Samuel"  (i  Sam.  xii  :  18);  or  when 
Isaiah  says,  ''The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  his  name  and 
thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ;  the  God  of 
the  whole  -earth  shall  he  be  called"  (Is.  liv  :  5);  or 
when  Paul  says,  "  I  commend  you  to  God,  and  to  the 
word  of  his  grace"  (Acts  xx :  32) ;  or  when  the 
Chronicles  say,  They  "  worshipped  God  and  the 
6* 


130  TJie   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

King"  (i  Chr.  xxix  :  20) ;  or  when  Isaiah  says, ''  Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  the  Redeemer  of  Israel,  and  his  Holy 
One"  (Is.  xlix:  7)  ;  or  when  Moses  says,  "  They  be- 
lieved the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses"  (Ex.  xiv: 
31) ;  or  when  Paul  says,  "  By  whom  we  have  received 
grace  and  apostleship"  (Rom.  i  :  5) ;  or  when  Peter 
and  Paul  both  speak  of  "  the  Spirit  and  power"  (Acts 
X :  38  ;  I  Cor.  ii :  4), — I  beg  any  one  to  decide, 
whether,  in  a  great  and  sober  polemic,  the  discrep- 
ance of  these  terms,  or  the  likeness  of  these  terms,  is 
either  to  be  defined  or  limited  by  the  mere  force  of 
their  conjugal  location. 

But  if  not,  what  becomes  of  the  Baptismal  Trinity  ? 

§  8.    TJie  Apostolic  Benediction. 

And  if  the  Baptismal  Formula  is  no  argument,  I 
think  no  one  will  blame  me  for  passing  by  the  Apos- 
tolic Benediction,  as  offering  the  same  appeal,  only 
with  far  feebler  influence.  If  the  form  of  baptism 
reminds  each  of  us,  at  a  solemn  moment,  of  the  saving 
relations  of  the  Deity,  the  benediction  actually  speci- 
fies those  relations.  It  is  a  sort  of  running  comment 
upon  the  work  of  God.  And  "  the  grace  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  a  resume  of  all  that  God 
does  for  man  :  and  though,  as  we  have  all  along  con- 
fessed, consistent  with  a  Trinity  if  there  be  a  Trinity, 
yet,  like  all  the  other  passages,  not  a  proof  of  it.  What 
we  are  looking  for  is  positive  proof.  The  whole  course 
of  our  argument  is,  that  the  proof  is  illusory  :  that  there 
is  wonderful  fencing  from  attack  in  the  plea  that  the 
Trinity  are  the  same  in  substance  ;  but  that  when  we 


God  the  Father,  131 

summon  that  evanescent  thing  a  Hypostasis,  the  show- 
ing is  not  soHd.  There  is  the  mere  emptying  of  one 
consistency  into  another  ;  without  that  actual  proof, 
that  would  be  demanded  in  far  lower  interests. 

§  9.  The  Scene  at  Jordari, 

Witness,  for  example,  the  great  insisting  upon 
the  Scene  at  Jordan.  Turrettin  goes  so  far  as  to 
quote,  **  Abi^  Ariane,  ad  Jordanem,  et  videbis  Trini- 
tatem  (Tur.  Qu.  xxv.  §  7).  Now,  exhaust  the  proof. 
Jesus  Christ  says,  "  No  man  hath  ascended  up  to 
heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven,  even 
the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven"  (Jo.  iii :  13). 
According  to  that,  Christ  has  two  Persons.  Let  us 
understand  precisely  the  argument.  Because  the 
Baptized  Person  was  down  in  Jordan,  and  the  Ac- 
cepting Voice  was  up  in  heaven,  and  the  Descending 
Dove  was  hovering  in  the  air,  therefore  there  are 
three  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  That  is,  because 
"  truth  shall  spring  out  of  the  ground,"  it  is  a  totally 
different  thing,  and  springs  from  a  totally  different 
source,  from  the  ''  righteousness"  which  looks  "  down 
from  heaven"  (Ps.  Ixxxv :  11).  Because  there  is  a 
'^  Son  of  Man,  which  is  in  heaven"  (Jo.  iii :  13),  there- 
fore he  is  a  totally  different  Person  from  the  Son  of 
man  closeted  with  the  Ruler.  Because  he  casts  forth 
lightning  and  scatters  them,  therefore  he  is  a  heavenly 
person,  and  not  the  earthly  person  that  shoots  out 
arrows  and  destroys  them  (Ps.  cxliv  :  6).  What  is 
such  argument  really  worth?  The  voice,  "This  is 
my  beloved  Son,"  was  not  the  voice  of  the  Almighty, 
but  a  pulsation  of  the  air  by  which  he  miraculously 


132  TJie  Trinity  a7id  Scripture. 

revealed  himself.  The  Descending  Dove  was  not 
God,  but  the  apparition  of  a  bird,  representing  his 
Holy  Spirit.  The  flesh  in  Jordan  was  not  Jehovah, 
but  the  Carpenter's  Son,  in  whom  he  had  been 
pleased  to  become  incarnate.  The  dramatic  dislo- 
cations of  the  Most  High  are  no  more  evincive  of  a 
Trinity,  than  that  the  Father  lives  in  the  skies,  and  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  comes  downward  from  the  Father,  and 
pours  himself  upon  the  head  of  the  Lord  our  Advocate. 


CHAPTER   V. 
The  Trinity  Nothing  to  the  Gospel. 

§  I.  WJiat  are  the  Gospel  Ideas  f 

The  shock  that  our  creed  will  create  is,  lest  it 
destroy  the  gospel  ideas.  This  fear  is  not  unreason- 
able. The  denial  of  the  Trinity  in  God  has  been  like 
the  palsy,  a  deadly  symptom.  I  mean  that,  like  the 
palsy,  it  has  been  so  the  symptom  of  a  deadly  state, 
that  men  pronounce  upon  it  at  the  start,  and  it  be- 
comes associated,  in  the  diagnosis  of  the  Church,  with 
all  the  deadly  symptoms  with  which  it  has  had  in- 
cidental unity. 

But  this  is  unfair. 

Moreover,  the  path  to  it  has  been  different  from 
ours.  It  has  begun  in  laxities  far  down  beneath  it, 
and  which  travelled  up  to  it  by  gradual  approach.  It 
began  in  Arminianism.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that 
Geneva  learned  what  it  has  learned  by  the  track  of 
humanitarianism  and  Pelagian  heresy.  Hence  the 
vice  of  Geneva,  and  of  all  her  sister  cities,  is  that  she 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  133 

denies  the  Redeemer.  It  is  so  in  London.  It  is  so 
in  our  own  land.  The  glorious  gospel  of  Christ  per- 
ished by  inanition.  Now  I  say,  There  is  a  vast  dif- 
ference, in  a  creed  that  has  sprung  from  a  denial  of 
the  gospel  ;  which  has  ripened  in  a  reverence  for 
man  ;  which  has  proceeded  to  a  dethronement  of 
Christ  ;  and  which  has  come  entirely  to  deny  the 
Deity  of  our  Redeemer  :  and  one  that  enforces  that 
Deity :  which  begins  by  piling  every  thing  upon  it  : 
which  makes  Christ  the  plenary  Jehovah  ;  and  which 
gets  rid  of  the  Trinity  a  parte  mite  by  showing  that 
it  degrades  Christ,  and  not  a  parte  post  by  showing 
that  Christ  must  be  degraded,  because  no  salvation 
of  men  and  no  miraculous  birth  is  needed  for  the 
welfare  of  the  people. 

I  insist  that  these  two  geneses  of  belief  are  totally 
different  ;  and  that,  as  the  physician  discovers  some- 
times a  palsy  which  is  as  innocent  as  a  birth  ;  which 
may  be  incident  to  mere  childish  state  ;  and  which 
may  be  neither  serious  or  deep, — so  an  anti-Trinita- 
rian creed  may  be  found  deifying  Christ,  and  enno- 
bling all  the  doctrines  of  salvation. 

What  are  these  doctrines? 

A.-denial  of  the  Trinity,  if  it  uphold  (i)  Incarna- 
tion, (2)  Redemption,  (3)  Mediation,  (4)  Intercession, 
(5)  Regeneration,  (6)  Justification,  (7)  Adoption,  (8) 
Sanctification,  (9)  the  Final  Judgment,  and  (10)  the 
Glorification  of  the  redeemed,  cannot  be  far  astray : 
and  if  it  hold  them  with  peculiar  emphasis,  and  make 
much  of  them,  and  present  them  in  orthodox  forms, 
surely  it  should  be  investigated  twice,  before  it 
should  be  denounced  as  a  damning  heresy. 


134  TJie  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

§  2.  The  Incarnation. 

The  Trinitarian  believes  that  the  Second  Person 
of  the  Trinity  is  incarnate  in  Christ.  We  believe 
that  the  Whole  Person  of  our  Maker  is  so  incarnate. 
The  Trinitarian  believes  that  the  Second  Person  of 
the  Trinity  must  be  incarnate  in  Christ,  to  give  him 
a  worth  and  a  name  adequate  to  our  redemption. 
We  believe  that  the  Whole  Deity  is  so  incarnate  for 
the  same  purpose,  and  that  the  Whole  Deity  gives 
the  power  and  the  worth  that  makes  Christ  a  suffi- 
cient Victor  for  the  soul's  salvation. 

§  3.  Redemption 

The  Trinitarian  believes  that  Christ,  being  the 
Son  of  God  by  being  united  with  the  Eternally  Re- 
gotten,  lived  and  died  as  a  substitute  for  us,  both  as 
to  merit  and  to  punishment,  and  that,  by  force  of 
this  vicariousness,  he  substituted  himself  in  our  place, 
and,  so,  is  ready  to  welcome  us  in  his  own  blessed 
claim  at  the  Final  Judgment.  We  believe  precisely 
the  same  thing ;  only,  our  Christ  is  united  with  God  ; 
and  the  Eternally  Begotten,  Hke  the  Eternal  Sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass,  or  like  the  Miraculous  Wafer,  §eeras, 
like  the  Right  of  Kings,  or  like  the  Divine  in  Bap- 
tism, to  have  been  lightly  introduced,  from  unre- 
solved and  uninvestigated  emblematical  expressions. 

§  4.  Mediation. 

To  the  objection.  This  leaves  no  room  for  Media- 
tion :  if  Christ  is  God,  and  if  that  is  carried  so  far  as 
to  obliterate  a  Trinity  ;  and  if  that  go  to  the  extreme 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  135 

of  making  the  One  Jehovah  angry  with  the  lost,  and» 
at  the  same  time,  die  on  the  cross  to  save  them, — 
where  is  the  room  for  Mediation  ?  and,  in  fact,  where 
is  the  Redemption  ?  If  the  same  God  die  to  please 
himself,  where  is  the  angry  Judge?  and  where  is  the 
pitiful  and  aroused  and  propitiating  God  our  Saviour? 

Now,  this  is,  in  fact,  two  questions. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  Where  is  the  Redemption  ? 

Now,  the  Trinitarian  himself  believes  that  God  is 
merciful.  He  believes  that  he  instituted  grace.  He 
believes  that  the  whole  universe  rang  with  it  before 
time  began.  He  believes  that  the  Father  willeth  not 
the  death  of  the  sinner,  but  that  all  should  turn 
and  live.  He  believes,  or  else  he  ought  to,  that  he 
taketh  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth, 
but  that  all  should  turn  and  live  ;  and,  therefore,  that 
God  is  no  more  angry  than  Christ  (Rev.  vi :  16),  and 
no  more  pleased  than  Christ  ;  for  Christ  himself  is  to 
be  our  Angry  Judge  (Jo.  v:  22),  and  God  himself 
was  our  Redeemer  (Acts  xx  :  28),  from  the  beginning. 

He  believes,  therefore,  that  what  is  to  be  satisfied 
is  justice,  and  that  what  is  to  be  exercised  is  mercy  ; 
and  he  has,  doubtless,  often  emphasized  the  emblem 
of  a  just  judge  weeping  over  the  culprit,  and,  never- 
theless, dooming  him,  in  a  just  way,  to  a  bitter  exe- 
cution. 

Now,  put  all  these  things  together  ;  and  put  in 
another  thing — that  the  Son  is  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father, — and  surely  there  can  be  small  complaint. 
The  Trinitarian  says.  The  Son  reconciles  us  to  the 
Father;  and  we  say,  The  Son  reconciles  us  to  Je- 
hovah :  and  both  say,  Both  the  Father  and  the  Sor? 
28 


136  The   Trinity  and  Scripture, 

are  God,  and  are  of  one  mind,  and  have  both  been 
concerned,  as  the  One  Glorious  Jehovah,  in  reconcil- 
ing all  things  to  himself. 

2.  But  it  will  be  said,  Here  is  no  Mediation. 

Why  not  ? 

A  is  a  mediator  between  C  and  D.  Is  that  the 
mediation  of  Christ  ?  Nobody  pretends  it.  The  first 
Adam  was  under  a  covenant ;  the  second  Adam  was 
under  a  covenant.  Were  they  alike  ?  The  Apostle 
declares  they  were  different  (Rom.  v:  12-21).  There 
was  an  imputation  in  either  case.  Was  it  the  same  ? 
Paul  carefully  argues,  No  (vs.  15,  16).  Then,  listen 
to  the  lesson.  All  the  emblems  of  the  Bible  are  to 
be  carefully  regarded  in  their  exceptions.  If  God  is 
said  to  "  repent,"  we  are  to  look  at  it.  If  he  is  said 
to  be  "  furious,"  we  are  to  lay  it  side  by  side  with 
passages  that  speak  of  him  as  "  grieved,"  or  as 
"  cruel."  We  are  to  read  the  Bible  with  the  usual 
appreciative  guards.  When,  therefore,  it  says,  "  Now 
a  mediator  is  not  a  mediator  of  one,  but  God  is 
one"  (Gal.  iii  :  20),  we  are  to  look  at  it  as  what  it 
really  is  ;  not  a  pretext  for  a  thousand  glosses  (see 
Meyer,  in  loc),  nay,  for  whole  solid  books  (Bonitz, 
Reil,  Koppe,  etc.),  but  as  a  simple  intimation  that 
Mediatorship  is  an  emblem  in  the  gospel,  but  not  a 
very  perfect  emblem,  in  that  the  Man-God  is  not 
separate  from  any  other  God,  and  in  that  the  God- 
Man  is  not  altogether  separate  from  certain  other 
men  ;  for,  as  the  Apostle  himself  argues  it,  '*  Ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus"  (v.  28). 

The  difficulty  of  the  Mediation  lies  here.  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  reconcile    us   to  the  Almighty.     He  is. 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  137 

however,  himself  the  Ahiiighty.  He  is,  notwith- 
standing that,  also  man.  Now,  as  man,  he  has  a 
separate  consciousness  ;  for  we  learn  that  he  did  not 
*'  know"  certain  things  that  were  known  by  his 
Divinity.  Moreover,  he  had  a  separate  will  ;  for  he 
says  himself,  "  Not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done"  (Lu. 
xxii :  42).  And,  therefore,  in  this  separate  conscious- 
ness and  will,  he  was  "very  man,"  as  our  Confession 
expresses  it. 

What  trouble,  therefore,  in  the  rhetoric,  if  Christ, 
as  very  man,  should  be  looked  on  as  Mediator  be- 
tween Divinity  and  Humanity?  Recollect,  Person 
is  not  an  inspired  word.  If  anybody  were  to  say.  Is 
the  Deity  or  Humanity  of  Christ  a  separate  Person, 
I  would  decline  to  answer,  I  would  say,  The  word 
is  not  decisive :  I  will  tell  the  facts.  And  when  I 
came  to  tell  the  facts,  it  would  be  thus :  Christ,  as 
having  but  one  authority,  and  one  forensic  name,  and 
one  administrative  power,  is  the  One  Almighty ;  but 
Christ,  as  the  carpenter's  son,  can  be  looked  on  away 
from  the  Almighty  ;  and,  on  this  brother's  side,  I  can 
look  at  him  as  between  me  and  the  All  Wise. 

§  5.  hitercession. 

And  so  of  Intercession. 

In  fact,  if  we  look  at  Intercession,  we  will  see 
what  is  the  divine  Mediation. 

In  the  first  place,  **  Intercession"  is  not  a  word 
of  the  Bible.  The  word  in  the  Bible  means  en- 
treaty ;  it  means  direct  supplication.  The  idea  of 
*'  inter'  or  "  between'  is  not  expressed  in  the  original 


138  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

(Heb.  vll :  25).  Intercession,  therefore,  as  an  argu- 
ment from  the  language  employed,  is  met  already. 

But,  then,  the  very  idea  of  prayer! 

The  Trinitarian  says,  There  are  three  Persons  in 
the  Godhead  ;  and,  therefore,  the  praying  of  Christ 
to  his  Father  is  perfectly  natural  ;  and  is  but  the  en- 
treaty of  one  Person  to  another.  But  discard  the 
Trinity,  and  what  do  we  behold  ?  The  Son,  writhing 
in  Gethsemane,  is  interceding — with  himself!  The 
argument  seems  to  be  conclusive.  Either  Christ  is 
two  persons ;  or  else,  if  Jehovah  is  without  triplicity, 
we  have  the  preposterous  scene  of  Jehovah  wrestling 
with  Jehovah ;  that  is,  the  One  Grand  Divinity 
wrestling  with  itself:  an  idea  confounding  to  faith, 
and  destructive  to  popular  impression. 

But  now,  briefly  : — Who  says  that  Christ  is  not 
two  persons  ?  We  have  distinctly  refused  any  such 
language.  Let  me  explain  more  perfectly.  The 
word  Person  is  not  in  the  Bible.*  As  applied  to 
God  it  must  be  an  emblem  ;  and  before  I  use  it,  I 
must  know  distinctly  what  it  is  to  mean.  For  a  man 
to  seize  it,  and  use  it  as  a  formidable  weapon,  is  idle, 
unless  he  first  explain  what  he  means  by  it,  and  then 
it  will  have  no  force  in  itself,  but  only  as  a  resume 
of  the  facts  and  the  principles  which  we  must  look 
for  first  in  Scripture. 

Accordingly,  putting  together  a  whole  circle  of 
Scripture  truths,  and  calling  it  by  their  name,  Christ 
is  one  person ;  and  putting  together  another  circle, 
he  is  two  persons.  Where  is  the  benefit  of  doing 
either?     We  simply  decline  any  such  determination 

*  I  mean,  of  course,  as  of  the  Almighty. 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  139 

of  the  use.  And  as  we  are  free  of  the  word,  no  such 
word  being  used  in  revelation,  we  go  to  the  princi- 
ples at  the  very  first,  and  refuse  to  pump  our  rea- 
soning through  this  or  that  perfectly  arbitrary  ex- 
pression. 

Christ,  as  God,  is  one.  Christ,  as  man,  is  one. 
Christ  as  God-Man  is  two  ;  that  is  to  say,  as  our 
Confession  expresses  it,  he  is  "  very  God  and  very 
man."  Nevertheless  Christ,  as  God-Man,  is  one. 
And  if  it  were  left  to  us  to  volunteer  a  meaning,  we 
would  say.  Our  meaning  for  Person,  if  any  one  insists 
on  employing  it,  shall  be  in  consistence  with  this 
last  idea.  We  would  say,  Let  Christ  be  a  Person  ; 
and  let  us  call  him  one ;  and  let  his  unity  be  of  this 
nature, — that,  though  he  is  unquestionably  two,  yet 
the  Godhead  and  the  Manhood  have  great  respects 
of  unity  ;  first,  that  they  are  one  in  Court,  the  whole 
world  pleading  but  the  One  Name,  forensically ; 
second,  that  they  are  one  in  Rule,  the  whole  world 
bowing  to  the  same  sceptre  ;  and,  third,  that  they 
are  one  in  a  mysterious  incarnation,  the  Eternal  God 
actually  entering  and  making  himself  one  in  Christ 
Jesus. 

It  would  be  these  strong  unities  that  would  make 
me  refuse  to  give  up  the  word  Person  to  any  other. 

But  if  a  man  insisted,  and  said  he  would  use  it 
as  he  pleased  ;  that  Person  was  not  an  inspired  ap- 
pellative, and  he  would  say  that  Christ  had  two 
Persons  ;  and  if  he  were  then  to  go  on  to  explain, 
that  Christ  was  entire  and  distinct  Man,  and  also 
Eternal  God ;  and  if  he  were  further  to  explain,  that 
one  person  was  weak  and  wretched,  and  the  other 


140  TJlc   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

glorious ;  that  one  person  was  buffeted  and  tempted, 
and  the  other  the  God  in  Heaven  ;  if  he  were  to  say, 
One  person  shrank,  and  the  other  comforted  and 
spoke  peace, — I  could  not  say  that  I  like  his  vocabu- 
lary, but  I  would  certainly  understand  it. 

Nay,  I  could  use  it. 

And  if  the  Trinitarian  were  to  press,  too  much, 
the  word  in  the  other  sense,  then  I  could  enforce  it ; 
and  I  could  say.  Neither  word  is  Scriptural ;  and, 
therefore,  there  are  facts  expounded  by  the  one, 
which  are  not  at  variance  with  those  understood  by 
the  other. 

For  example,  prayer ! 

Christ  was  weak  and  wretched.  Did  that  forbid 
his  divine  nature  helping  his  human  nature  ?  He 
was  ignorant.  Where  did  he  go  for  light  ?  He  was 
tempted.  Who  helped  him  ?  What  is  meant  by 
that  Eternal  Spirit  by  which  he  offered  himself,  with- 
out spot,  to  God?  (Heb.  ix:  14).  And  if  he  could 
trust  to  that  Spirit,  why  not  pray  ?  In  other  words, 
we  believe  that  Christ  had  an  entire  humanity  :  that 
that  humanity  was  equipped  for  every  act  known  to 
man  ;  that  that  humanity  was  distinct  from  the  di- 
vinity ;  not  with  a  hypostatic  difference,  leaving  it 
the  same  in  substance  equal  in  power  and  glory,  but 
making  it  different  in  substance,  and  utterly  without 
glory  (Is.  xli :  24) ;  and  that  this  inglorious  humanity 
could  pray  (Heb.  v  :  7)  to  the  divinity  ;  there  being 
but  one  Jehovah  ;  and  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  being  but  One  Person,  subject  to  that 
complicity  of  state  which  resulted  from  incarnation 
in  the  blessed  Jesus. 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  141 

Prayer,  therefore,  like  hunger  and  fasting ;  and 
like  many  another  act  ;  hke  his  pain  upon  the  cross, 
and  Hke  his  slumber  in  the  depths  of  the  grave, — was 
an  attribute  of  the  man  ;  and  even  the  Trinity  must 
so  link  itself  with  these  very  ideas  (we  admitting,  of 
course,  that  the  man  must  be  supported  and  enforced 
by  the  God),  that  it  can  find  httle  room  for  the 
Eternally  Begotten,  if  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  prays 
directly  to  his  Heavenly  Father 

§  6.  Regeneration. 

The  Trinitarian  believes  in  a  work  by  the  Spirit, 
and  feels  confused  and  discomfited  if  we  obliterate 
the  distinction  between  Him  and  the  Father.  He 
feels  as  if  we  had  denied  the  separateness  of  the 
operations  of  redemption.  Yet  what  does  the  Trini- 
tarian believe  ?  He  believes  that  we  are  born  of  the 
Spirit.  So  do  we.  He  believes  that  that  Spirit  is 
God.  So  do  we.  All  believe  that  we  are  '*  born  of 
God"  (Jo.  v:  13).  He  is  discomfited  if  ransom  is  con- 
founded with  the  new  birth.  So  are  we  discomfited. 
We  pass  on  from  point  to  point ;  and  at  last  arrive 
at  a  single  respect  of  difference.  He  believes  that 
the  new  birth  is  by  God,  because  he  believes  that  the 
Spirit  is  one  with  God,  "  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory."  Can  we  be  very  far  astray  ?  He 
believes  that  the  Trinity  all  share  in  each  other's 
work.  We  believe  that  they  all  do  the  work.  And 
our  sin,  if  we  have  any,  is  that  we  deny  a  mysterious 
difference.  We  say  that  the  Father  new-creates  (Jo. 
vi :  44,  65) ;  and  a  beautiful  fact  of  our  system  is,  that 
it  agrees  with  Scripture.     The  Scripture  pays  no  at- 


142  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

tention  to  a  Trinity;  and  just  as  if  the  Viceroy  and 
the  Pasha  and  the  Khedive  were  all  the  same,  it 
speaks  indifferently  of  either.  '' It  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth"  (Jo.  vi :  63) ;  and  then,  as  though  to  for- 
bid our  settling  upon  some  new-creating  Hypostasis, 
it  says,  "  As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  and 
quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom 
he  will"  (Jo.  v:  21) ;  and  then,  as  though  the  word, 
God,  were  the  prose  announcement  for  the  whole,  he 
says,  "  Which  were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will 
of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God" 
(Jo.i:  13). 

§   7.   Justification. 

Justification  will  have  more  asserted  about  it. 

The  Trinitarian  will  declare  that  the  angry  God 
and  the  pacifying  Christ  must  be  two  Persons.  And, 
yet,  never  did  a  theory  so  break  down  when  we  come 
to  challenge  it.  We  ask  the  Trinitarian,  Was  God 
angry?  He  will  say.  Yes.  We  ask  him,  Was  Christ 
angry  ?  He  will  stop  to  meditate.  Presently  we 
will  see  that  a  motion  is  taking  place  in  his  mind. 
He  is  moving  all  the  difference  of  thought  and  senti- 
ment that  exists  between  the  Father  and  the  Son 
away  from  the  Incarnate  Deity,  and  on  to  the  man 
Christ  Jesus.  We  let  a  long  pause  ensue,  and  then 
ask  him,  and  we  find  that  a  great  change  has  occurred. 
There  is  no  such  difference  in  the  anger  and  in  the 
love  as  he  at  first  imagined.  He  finds  that  the 
Father  conceived  redemption  (Jo.  iii :  16).  He  finds 
that  the  Son  is  angry,  like  the  Father  (Matt,  xxv ; 
41).     He  finds  that  their  attitudes  are  shared.     And 


Not  J  ling  to  the  Gospel.  143 

when  he  comes  to  run  the  ploughshare  of  difference 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  he  finds  himself 
forced  off  on  some  idea  of  Justice.  Both  are  trying 
to  satisfy  Justice.  The  Father  is  no  more  angry  than 
the  Son,  both  viewed  as  God.  And  if  it  be  said, 
The  Father  was  angry  rt;/  the  Son,  digestion  of  detail 
soon  fixes  the  proper  relation.  The  Father  pours 
out  upon  a  Man  the  vials  of  wrath  ;  and  when  we 
come  to  the  constitution  of  that  Man,  the  Father 
gives  him  strength  (Lu.  ii :  40).  He  is  clothed  with 
forensic  dignity  (Jer.  xxiii :  6).  Two  supplements  are 
made.  He  is  begotten  into  a  divine  strength  (Rom. 
1:4);  and  decked  with  God's  authority  (Matt,  xxviii : 
18)  :  and,  when  he  comes  to  explain  all  this  himself, 
he  says  it  is  his  Father.  "  I  live  by  the  Father"  (Jo. 
vi:  57).  At  any  rate,  God  is  no  more  angry  at  sin, 
than  Christ  is,  as  the  Great  Almighty  (Rev.  vi :  16). 
The  Father  is  said  to  reconcile  all  things  to  him- 
self by  Jesus  Christ  (2  Cor.  v :  14).  Where  would  be 
the  propriety  of  this,  if  there  were  a  great  gospel 
motive  for  keeping  separate  the  anger  of  one  original 
Hypostasis,  and  the  assiduity  of  another?  Christ 
himself  is  said  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himself  (Col. 
i:  21,22);  and,  as  though  to  give  a  parting  over- 
throw to  all  idea  of  personalities,  as  between  God 
and  God,  there  Is  a  text  from  Paul  which  places  Je- 
hovah precisely  as  we  describe  him — One  God,  apart 
from  any  distraction  till  he  becomes  Emmanuel — and 
then,  One  God  tabernacling  in  the  flesh — One  God, 
Father  Son  or  Spirit  as  we  may  choose  our  rhetoric — 
One  God,  complete  in  the  divine  decree  from  all 
eternity — but   One    God    completed    in  Emmanuel, 


144  The  Trinity  and  Scripture. 

fitted  by  assuming  flesh  for  the  salvation  of  the 
world  ;  building  upon  that  en-fleshed  Jehovah  all 
creation  ;  and  not  talking  as  though  God  were  the 
Angered,  and  Christ  were  the  Merciful  ;  but  laying 
all  smooth  in  this  crowning  text,  ''  Feed  the  church 
of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own 
blood"  (Acts,  XX  :  28) ;  as  though  "  God  so  loved 
the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son"  (Jo. 
iii :  16):  and  as  though  the  "begotten  Son"  were 
not  first  an  Eternally  Begotten,  and  then  a  Begotten 
in  Nazareth  ;  but  most  distinctly  this  last  alone ;  so 
that  this  Divine  Begetter  is  a  Father  by  entering, 
himself;  by  coming  in,  in  his  Whole  Divinity;  by 
pouring  down,  with  every  endowment ;  by  making 
one,  in  the  most  solemn  way ;  and  by  being  able  to 
say,  therefore,  that  he  reconciles  all  things  TO  HIM- 
SELF (2  Cor.  v  :  18) ;  and  that  he  is  himself  the  Most 
High,  "  our  Redeemer,"  and  "  the  Lord,  our  Right- 
eousness" (Is.  xlvii :  4  ;  Jer.  xxiii :  6). 

§  8.  Adoption. 

And  so  of  Adoption.  The  Trinitarian  is  confused 
if  we  do  not  allow  a  separate  Father,  and  a  separate 
Spirit  as  a  Spirit  of  Adoption,  and  a  separate  Son  to 
be  associated  with  us,  that  he  may  be  the  First  Born 
among  many  brethren. 

But  singularly  enough,  Christ  is  the  person  that 
tramples  upon  all  this.  He  is  careful  enough,  where 
his  humanity  needs  to  be  distinguished.  He  is  very 
express,  lest  his  manhood  be  forgotten,  and  lest  he 
be  too  much  confused  with  God,  in  his  weakness 
(Lu.  xviii :   19)  and  death  as  a  sacrifice  (Jo.  xvii :   \) ; 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel.  145 

but,  where  his  divinity  is  concerned,  he  becomes  con- 
fused at  once.  If  Christ  was  discrepant  from  the 
Father,  and  that  discrepance  was  not  human,  but 
began  in  the  original  Divinity,  he  is  hard  upon  his 
people.  He  brings  us  to  the  brink  of  almost  neces- 
sary error.  We  might  have  a  better  teacher.  He 
does  not  treat  us  as  we  are,  poor  erring  children,  and 
keep  well  in  hand  the  lines  of  an  original  triplicity  ; 
but  he  confounds,  knowingly.  He  takes  the  most 
preserved  peculiarities  of  the  Father,  and  claims  them 
utterly.  "Ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  cho- 
sen you,  and  ordained  you  :" 

§  9.  Judgment. 

— Nor  does  he  stop  short  of  the  Universal  Judg- 
ment. He  seats  himself  at  a  bound  upon  the  Fa- 
ther's throne.  He  speaks  exactly  as  though  he  were 
the  whole.  He  says,  "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man, 
but  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son"  (Jo. 
V  :  22) :  which  cannot  mean  that  the  Father  will  not 
judge  at  all  (Rom.  iii :  6;  i  Pet.  i:  17) ;  but  must  be 
one  of  those  Eastern  phrases, — "■  They  had  not  had 
sin"  (Jo.  XV :  22),  or,  "  I  came  not  to  judge  the 
world"  (Jo.  xii :  47) :  and  must  mean  that  the  man- 
hood shall  be  on  the  throne,  and  the  plenary  Jeho- 
vah shall  be  in  judgment  in  him. 

§  10.  Sanctification. 

We  speak,  just  as  the  Trinity  does,  of  being  sanc- 
tified by  the  Holy  Ghost.     And  let  it  be  observed, 
there  is  not  one  of  the  liturgical  expressions  that  we 
do  not  use,  if  it  is  at  all  a  counterpart  to  what  is  said 
7 


146  The   Trinity  and  Scripture. 

in  Scripture.  We  pray  for  the  Spirit.  We  recog- 
nize the  appointed  Comforter  ;  and  think  of  him  as 
coming  down  ;  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  being 
poured  upon  us,  and  as  dweUing  in  us  as  a  perpetual 
temple.  Moreover  we  believe,  as  others  do,  that  he 
is  the  One  God,  the  same  in  substance  equal  in 
power  and  glory.  We  only  deny  a  triplicity.  And, 
therefore,  the  Holy  Ghost,  who,  in  the  Trinity,  is  of 
one  substance  with  the  Father,  with  us  is  the  same 
Person.  There  can  be  our  sole  mistake.  And  that 
seems  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  Bible,  which  speaks 
of  the  lost  sinner  as  sanctified  by  the  Father  (Jude 
i),  and  the  Son  (Heb.  ii :  11),  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Rom.  XV :   16). 

§11.  Glorijicatio7i. 

No  act  can  be  kept  distinguished.  If  there  could 
be  any,  would  it  not  be  our  being  glorified  ?  And, 
yet,  this  is  constantly  confused.  Would  it  not  be 
said,  The  Father  shall  glorify  us?  and  should  there 
not  be  fixed  solid  ground  that  must  remain  unal- 
tered? But,  while  everything  is  imputed  to  the 
glory  of  the  Father  (Rom.  vi :  4  ;  xv :  7),  Christ,  just 
as  if  he  were  the  Father  (Jo.  xiv  :  10),  seizes  upon  this 
last  token  of  a  distinctive  Fatherhood. 

Let  us  quote. 

''  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  keep  you  from 
falling,  and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the  pres- 
ence of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy,  to  the  only 
wise  God  our  Saviour,  be  glory  and  majesty,  do- 
minion and  power,  both  now  and  ever.  Amen."  (Jude 
24,  25).     "  Who    shall    change  our  vile  body,  that 


Nothing  to  the  Gospel,  147 

it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  ac- 
cording to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to 
subdue  all  things  unto  himself"  (Phil,  iii :  21).  "  That 
he  might  present  [the  church]  to  himself  a  glorious 
church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing  ; 
but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without  blemish" 
(Eph.  v:  27).  "  Looking  for  that  blessed  hope,  and 
the  glorious  appearance  of  our  great  God  and  Sa- 
viour, Jesus  Christ"  (Titus  ii :  13). 


29 


III. 

CONCLUSIO  N 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Scandal  of  this  Book. 


The  geography  and  authorship  of  this  book,  and 
its  relation  to  schools  and  creeds,  are  of  course  not 
vital  to  its  truth,  and  not  interesting  to  the  general 
reader.  But  in  the  whole  of  what  is  called  evangelical 
Christendom,  as  far  as  it  is  read  at  all,  it  will  awaken 
a  disagreable  surprise;  and  for  three  reasons. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  thought  seriously 
untrue.  This  however  is  the  whole  question  in  the 
book  itself. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  will  be  thought  disagree- 
ably presumptuous.  The  Trinity,  to  a  most  extra- 
ordinary degree,  hes  entrenched  in  the  region  of 
piety.  Intellect  has  often  come  out  against  it.  Locke 
and  Newton  and  Milton,  whatever  their  pious  claims, 
are  chiefly  remarkable  in  the  region  of  the  mind.  A 
man  may  embolden  himself  in  heresy  by  saying, 
Hume  is  with  me,  or  Boyle  is  with  me,  or  Shaftes- 
bury thinks  as  I  do ;  but  it  is  a  ghastly  comfort ;  be- 
cause there  are  the  assurances  of  Scripture  that  this 
worldly  intellect    is    specially  to  be  put  to   shame 


TJie  Scandal  of  this  Book.  149 

Locke  certainly  denied  the  Trinity.  So  did  Newton. 
So  did  Milton.  Moreover  they  were  not  infidels  ; 
and,  what  is  far  more  interesting,  they  were  professed 
worshippers  of  Christ.  But,  perhaps,  Gamaliel  was 
a  good  man.  We  stand  in  awe,  rather,  of  intellect, 
when  it  comes  to  knocking  away  the  pins  of  what 
have  been  thought  great  truths  of  the  gospel. 

Isaac  Watts  denied  the  Trinity.  Here  we  have 
piety  and  rare  gifts  besides.  And  though  there  can 
be  no  question  of  the  fact,  and,  after  all  the  efforts 
of  his  biographers,  it  cannot  be  made  out  that  it  was 
the  faltering  of  his  stricken  faculties,  or  the  aberration 
of  a  crazy  mind  ;  though  there  are  sane  letters  telling 
why  he  could  not  alter  his  hymns,  and  how  the  prop- 
erty in  them  had  passed,  and  was  entirely  out  of  his 
control,  and  had  been  so  for  thirty  years  ;  though 
there  can  be  no  earthly  doubt  that  he  who  wrote 

"Alas  !  and  did  my  Saviour  bleed  ?  " 

lived,  in  the  entire  ripening  of  his  powers,  to  deny 
and  disown  the  separate  personality  in  God,  yet, 
alas !  he  denied  and  disowned  the  Deity  of  his  Re- 
deemer. The  shelter  is  but  a  forlorn  one.  Locke 
and  Newton  and  Milton  did  the  same. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  a  pleasant  thing,  when  we  find 
our  creed  not  in  the  Bible,  to  say,  Newton  thought 
so,  and  Locke  and  Milton  ;  and  they  thought  so  in 
their  maturest  and  most  pious  period  :  and  it  is  an 
assuring  thing  to  discover  Watts  thought  so  ;  and  in 
all  the  aroma  of  earnest  faith,  wrote  so  to  the  world, 
just  as  he  was  ascending  to  his  heavenly  Father :  yet, 
alas !  this  is  but  a  poor  sort  of  prop.     In  the  first 


1 50  Conclusion. 

place,  These  are  but  a  few.  In  the  second  place, 
These  are  not  specimen  men,  but  men  of  advanced 
thought ;  and,  in  the  main,  of  very  enthusiastic  ideas. 
In  the  third  place,  They  became  Arian,  or  something 
worse.  And  though  we  say,  How  many  more  would 
join  them  if  they  were  shown,  as  we  have  tried  to 
do,  how  Christ  can  be  preserved,  and  yet  there  be  a 
denial  of  the  Trinity, — still,  all  this  remains  to  be 
proved.  There  is  a  scandalous  look  of  presumption 
in  just  such  a.  book  as  this.  Our  own  feelings,  but  a 
few  years  ago,  would  have  turned  from  it  with  dis- 
gust. The  only  excuse  for  it  must  be,  a  very  pro- 
found conviction.  And  though  it  is  right  to  say, 
Locke  and  Newton  and  Milton  parry  it  a  little,  and 
Watts  spreads  over  it  the  mantle  of  excuse  ;  and 
though  each  of  these  could  have  dissected  away  the 
Trinity  and  kept  Christ,  if  they  had  observed  the 
exegesis  followed  in  the  preceding  plan  ;  yet  all  this 
goes  for  very  little.  Unless  the  Trinity,  like  the 
Real  Presence,  has  come,  in  the  counsels  of  eternity, 
to  its  period  of  decline,  woe  worth  the  present  enter- 
prise, and  woe  worth  the  reckoning  of  any  man,  who 
kindles  the  bale-fires  of  death  in  face  of  the  noon-day 
light  of  a  blessed  revelation. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  What  doctrine  will  come 
next  ?  This  is,  perhaps,  of  all  others,  the  most  rea- 
sonable misgiving  of  the  church.  The  sin  of  Presby- 
terianism  has  been  to  deny  Emmanuel.  Here  its 
plague  has  begun.  It  has  not  been  in  an  overhon- 
ored  sacrament :  the  fall  of  Genevism  has  begun  in 
an  underhonored  Lord  and  Divine  Sacrifice. 

So  the  church  is  fully  warned. 


The  Benefit  of  this  Book.  1 5 1 

And  I  cannot  but  emphatically  agree,  that  a  fin- 
ger raised  against  the  Trinity  ought  to  be  watched 
like  a  match  in  the  magazine  of  a  Monitor.  There 
should  be  no  trifling  here.  But,  beyond  all  question, 
there  is  to  be  this  admission — that  error  is  to  be  no 
shelter  for  the  truth.  Our  Lord  said,  "  Let  both 
grow  to  the  harvest."  But  he  uttered  that  of  men, 
not  of  doctrines.  The  man  that  teaches  that  weeds 
must  shelter  the  crop,  debauches  his  religion.  The 
church,  in  our  day,  is  not  a  weakling,  such  that  she 
cannot  bear  the  most  fruitful  investigations:  and  if 
she  were,  she  would  have  no  right  to  withhold  them. 
The  simple  point  is,  Is  there  a  Trinity  ?  If  there  is, 
no  weapon  formed  against  it  will  prosper.  If  there 
be  not,  it  is  a  shameful  disrespect  to  the  Master  to 
be  sheltering  him,  as  the  glorious  God,  behind  abase- 
less  dogma  of  a  Pagan  Platonism. 


CHAPTER  II. 
The  Benefit  of  this  Book 

1.  All  truth  is  of  necessary  value.  If  the  Trin- 
ity is  not  a  fact,  it  clogs  and  clouds  the  actual  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel. 

2.  The  Trinity  is  hard  to  teach.  We  are  holding 
out  our  hand  to  distant  and  stupid  Pagans.  Men's 
lives  are  going  into  the  scheme  ;  and  patient  women 
are  withering  under  unwholesome  skies.  The  dog- 
ma of  the  Trinity  costs  missionary  life  ;  for,  all  the 
time  spent  in  propounding  it,  if  it  is  false,  or  defend- 
ing it,  if  it  be  not  defensible,  is  like  what  Paul  speaks 


152  Conclusion, 

of  as  beating  the  air.  It  is  keeping  back  the  lost 
from  mercy,  and  loading  the  principia  of  grace  with 
what  Paul  calls  '^  unsanctioned  fables"  (i  Tim.  iv:  7). 

3.  Third,  it  almost  prohibits  certain  entrances 
among  the  perishing. 

Oh,  if  Mohammed  had  not  found  the  Trinity  in 
Damascus !  if  that  pale-faced  youth  had  not  en- 
countered, in  his  aroused  conscientious  frame,  the 
Hypostasis  of  the  Bishops  !  if  the  Old  Man  of  the 
Sea  had  not  jumped  on  Sinbad  on  his  first  setting 
out  upon  the  deep, — who  can  tell  what  young  Mo- 
hammed might  not  have  been  formed  to  be  ? 

At  any  rate,  everybody  will  admit,  that,  if  the 
Trinity  be  a  mistaken  heresy,  it  will  give  us  new  life, 
to  unseat  it :  and  that  Southward  among  the  African 
Lakes,  and  Eastward  among  other  Mussulmans  ;  that 
among  the  Unitarians  of  our  own  land,  and  among 
Jews  all  over  the  world, — the  doctrine  of  One  Great 
God,  and  he  incarnate  in  the  One  Man  Our  Saviour, 
would  give  us  a  new  power  to  work,  and  give  us  alto- 
gether a  noble  form  in  which  to  cast  the  enterprise 
of  the  gospel. 


THE    END. 


Date  Due                          | 

'^ '  '5C^ 

1 

.(I  - ■  V- 

^^^^^j 

wm 

49fff^ 

p- 

.    .  . 

.AUOTMM 

w 

.--■ 

'g^MIHHHI 

■^ 

C  tfr^^n^ 

f 

V 

f) 

